tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2396201401606817512024-03-13T08:25:06.311-04:00Michael W. FergusonI learn, I think and then I write. I believe in intellectual sophistication. I am Apollonian. I am an anationalist or what many call a Digital Nomad. Please subscribe to my Newsletter to stay in touch.
Pages describe my original work.
Michael's Resumehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15472400070847709603noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-239620140160681751.post-36542783681183364102022-11-15T02:06:00.000-05:002022-11-15T02:06:00.438-05:00Misinformation and Social Media Moderation<p> </p><p data-pm-slice="1 1 []"><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><strong>Granting free speech to others is not a natural human impulse. It is very unsettling to think that one's world view is a perspective rather than an absolute truth. To institutionalize free speech is to tacitly accept that 'truth' is more uncertain than that and often more relative than absolute. It doesn't mean that throwing out rationality and resorting to a position of 'my truth' is supported, but rather we need to accept that conflicting evidence is the norm in the real world and consequently one should, at all times, temper one’s certainty. </strong></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><strong>So, the impulse to 'moderate' misinformation is not surprising. However, it is unacceptable for two reasons. First, we have practical examples where, from the Russian collusion to the source of the SARS-2 virus to Hunter Biden’s laptop, the ‘misinformation’ that was censored by the major social media platforms often turned out to be more likely correct than not. However, it also is a matter of evenness of application.</strong></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><strong><br />I am a Marlovian. That means that I believe that Christopher Marlowe wrote the plays and sonnets that have been attributed to William Shakespeare. I have concluded that the evidence best supports the hypothesis that Marlowe's death was faked, that he fled to the continent and had his friend, Shakespeare, register the plays in his name. I won't go into all the evidence here. However, the community of experts in English Literature would consider the Marlovian theory to be misinformation. It might be correct or it may be wrong, but either way, the First Amendment and other nations' provisions for protecting unpopular speech allows me to present my case. I and other Marlovians are not censored, which is an example of uneven application of misinformation moderation.<br /><br />It is obviously not just me and my Marlovian belief. For example, Walter and Luis Alvarez, in 1980, proposed that the primary cause of the extinction event 66 mya at the KT boundary was the result of an asteroidal impact. It arose from geological studies that Walter Alvarez undertook in the 1970s that found excess iridium in the KT boundary layer. Despite the rewrite that you will find on the Internet, the initial reaction was extraordinarily rancorous with the mainstream Paleontology community flatly rejecting it. Eventually, the 'smoking gun' crater was found in the Yucatan and it was dated to the KT boundary. This made it difficult to reject the hypothesis, though to this day some Paleontologists still try. Until then, it was absolutely treated like 'misinformation'. However, while derided, it was not censored.</strong></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><strong>When I was young, it was believed that ulcers were caused by stress and lifestyle. However, in 1982 Barry Marshall and Robin Warren discovered that most ulcers are caused by a bacterium known as <em>Helicobacter pylori</em>. For this they eventually won the Nobel Prize in Medicine. However, when they first published their findings, it was ridiculed. Today, it would be called misinformation. So, again we see, the danger of censoring what is considered misinformation.</strong></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><strong>In a more
current example, the 'Hunter Biden laptop', when published by the New
York Post, was labeled as misinformation and consequently censored in
most of the news media. We now know that it was legitimate. Some
people, including me, think that the misbehavior of a politician's
family member is not relevant to the election process. However, the
laptop does contain evidence that may be construed as evidence that Joe Biden was involved in a 'pay for play' scheme with foreign governments while Vice President. I will
leave that to be adjudicated elsewhere, but the laptop itself, whether
it was politically relavent or not, was an example of 'misinformation'
that turned out to be true. And that is the point.</strong></span></span></b><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><strong> <br /></strong></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><strong>Because we can only hope to distinguish truth from falsity through an open and unthrottled public discourse and we really can't be completely sure when someone is mistaken and when they are purposely lying, lying, too, must be protected speech. In a truly open, free speech environment, lies eventually fall under the weight of contrary evidence. <br /></strong></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><strong>I could go
on and on, but I think I have made my point. A very significant
portion of what might be called the advancement of human knowledge began
as misinformation. If we censor it, while we may remove disingenuous
and often silly narratives from the public discourse, we do so only at
the cost of stifling important, new insights. This is why Free Speech
must protect misinformation. We must allow the process of argumentation
to resolve these issues, not Moderation Boards, whether constituted of
social media platforms or government officials. </strong></span></span></b><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><strong> </strong></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><strong> </strong></span></span></b><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><strong>In
criminal matters the jury is admonished that in order to convict guilt
must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. That is even a less
stringent burden of proof than that to be exercised before condoning
censorship. Traditionally, it has been the likelihood that the speech
could reasonably be expected to result in overt public harm, with crying
‘fire!’ in a crowded building where it could result in stampeding
deaths as the most often quoted example. Some legal scholars even claim
that the possibility of public harm is too low a burden of proof.</strong></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><strong>Lastly, hate speech needs to be protected, too. For many, that may seem counter-intuitive, but the same argument of uneven enforcement applies. If you listen to a Leftist talk about Donald Trump, the hatred is obvious and expressed. If you listen to a Rightist talk about child pornographers, likewise, the hate is not disguised. Nearly everyone, save for a few very devout Christians on the Right and absolute Libertines on the Left, people hate and they most often consider their hate to be justified.<br /><br />So, we are caught in a situation where we all disapprove of speech that communicates hatred in some contexts but approve of it in others. For some, it is OK to hate Nazis, some hate Jews, others hate the opposite sex, a growing number hate people who try to impose gender norms. It seems that everyone wants to ban some hate speech but nobody wants to ban all hate speech. Thus, the banning of hate speech becomes highly problematic.<br /></strong></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><strong>So, it should be obvious that a different approach to moderation of social media sites must be found. This is a very current concern because Elon Musk has purchased Twitter and has vowed to restore Free Speech. If he continues with the moderation model, he is doomed to fail. As we saw above, there is no way to do it well.<br /><br />However, it is understandable that a company that offers a website that is ostensibly a public forum will feel a responsibility to have their site to be usable and that the venom that can arise when contentious issues are discussed won't intimidate participants to the extent that they do not participate to their fullest desire or even flee. So, the first impulse is to ban misinformation and hate speech. I, personally, don't think that ad hominem has any place in public discourse and I block people who engage in it. However, anyone who has waded into social media knows that most people don't agree with me. </strong></span></span></b><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><strong>People have
different tolerances to hostile rhetoric . Wherever the social media site sets their
hurdle for hate speech it will be too low for some users and too high for others. </strong></span></span></b><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><strong></strong></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><strong></strong></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><strong>Elon Musk cannot 'fix' Twitter simply by tweaking the algorithms or changing the members of moderation boards. A completely different approach is required. After some deep reflection, I advocate the method delineated below. It will involve moderation on these three levels.<br /><br /></strong></span></span></b></p><ol><li><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><strong>Twitter should have algorithms that flag potentially illegal speech or posts that appear to be reasonable evidence of crimes. These should be referred to law enforcement. These instances transcend simple censoring or banning. While an additional minor challenge, each jurisdiction within which Twitter operates will likely need a different algorithm. The bigger problem will be to determine within which jurisdiction the speech actually took place.<br /></strong></span></span></b></p></li><li><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><strong>Users should be able to set blanket editing on their accounts. For example, if a person does not want any pornography, they can select that setting and it will be 100% throttled. If the algorithm inadvertently allows them to see something they don't want to see, they can flag it and, using algorithms, similar posts will be throttled. Over time, the algorithm will learn precisely what the user mean by pornography. These blanket consumer based censoring algorithms should expand to include ones that might offend people on both sides.</strong></span></span></b></p></li><li><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><strong>When a person bans someone or throttles them, others who are statistically similar (banned by the same people) will be downgraded or throttled. Essentially, they will be throttled more than before the ban. When you like or retweet, that lowers their throttling, if there is any, and those who are similar. The statistics behind this idea is complex but this is ultimately doable.</strong></span></span></b></p></li></ol><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><strong>In essence, each user will, over time, create their own custom silo that will be a fuzzy set when compared with other users. This will create 'environments'. Some users will be inclined toward STEM, others toward the arts. Some will create ribald and 'in your face' environments while others will be more urbane. That is the proper implementation of free speech. <em>Essentially, you are free to say whatever you want, and I am free to hear it or to not hear it. </em>It is not Twitter's responsibility, or any other social media platform purporting to be a public square, to assure that the public square is carefully moderated to eliminate harsh rhetoric and/or misinformation. They can, through modern technology, allow those in the public square to choose the audiences to which they belong and what speech they will hear. <em><br /></em></strong></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><strong><br />I understand that some people will say that believing in pyramid building aliens is harmless misinformation, but advocating for opening schools during the COVID-19 pandemic was dangerous. No. Actually opening schools may or may not have been dangerous, but arguing for or against it was not. Clearly, both the governments of may jurisdictions as well as most large social media platforms were overtly attempting to stifle any messaging suggesting that schools should have been open. Today, in hindsight, it is not clear that their position was the correct one.<br /><br />EUNA needs to realize that no matter how good the intentions (and I am not sure that they always are pure) this censorious impulse may be, it is fundamentally illiberal and should not be supported by thoughtful citizens.</strong></span></span></b></p><br /><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"></span></span></b><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><br /></span></span></b></p>Michael's Resumehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15472400070847709603noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-239620140160681751.post-10472540974184278962022-11-14T08:53:00.004-05:002022-11-14T08:53:53.975-05:00The Polymathica Founders Group<p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">I am dedicating 2023 to the recruitment, organization and deployment of 100 founders of our subculture, Polymathica. We will have a private discussion area within my Substack, but we will also hold Zoom meetings, etc.<br /><br />This will not be a debating society. We will initiate projects, recruit leaders, get funding, if needed, and make it all happen. It is all about creating a parallel economy, with our own news, our own TV, our own books, our own social media, etc.<br /><br />Now, the people who join the Founders Group and are successful will likely acquire very affluent lifestyle. But, don't do it for that. There are probably easier ways to join the 1%. This is primarily a big deal you will be one of the Polymathica Founders. For the 10 million or so Polymathicans you will be where it all started.<br /><br />For those of you who just stumbled in, Polymathica is a subculture of Western Culture that reveres Intellectual Sophistication and engages in a lifelong pursuit it. Intellectual Sophistication is a combination of intelligence, erudition, objectivity and discipline. Because of this, we kind of need to be Apollonian rather than Dionysian. We are definitely part of Western Culture and, as such, we embrace liberal (not Liberal) values. But, we have our own take on it and one that I think most of us are quite proud.</span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">At the core of the Founders Group will the Polymathica Central Workgroup. Literally, we will be building a web presence that will be sort of like a combination of Amazon, Facebook, Twitter (or Gettr), Youtube (or Rumble), and more. It won't have as many monthly users (not even close), but what it lacks there it will partially make up for in breadth. The members of the workgroup will, upon success, definitely become wealthy, but not Zuckerberg level wealthy.<br /></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">I want Polymathica Central to be a collection of subdomains, bookstores, fashion boutiques, video streaming services, social media groups, educational groups, etc. Polymathica Central will charge 'rent' for being on the domain, like a kind of virtual mall, and that will be worthwhile because if you are providing goods or services to polymathic people, that is where you will find them. This is called network effects and is what drives the Internet.<br /></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">I will spend time and energy getting this started. However, other people in the work group will be the CEO, CIT, CFO, etc. of Polymathica Central. I learn, I think and then I write. To that end I will create a subdomain, The Polymathic Roundtable. It will be comprised of about 12 of the very best Polymaths I can find. Each of us will have a newsletter, but we will also convene round table discussions on a broad spectrum of topics. These may be presented in print, podcast or video. If in video, which I expect to be the norm, they will be accompanied by subscriber Super Chats.</span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">The going rate for paid subscribers on Substack is $60, though few newsletter writers can really justify that with volume of content. The Polymathic Roundtable will begin on Substack and be an outgrowth of my current MichaelWFerguson.Substack.com account. If you want to support the development of Polymathica Central and/or the Polymathic Roundtable but aren't interested in becoming a Founder, your $60 per year paid subscription will be greatly appreciated.</span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Your $60 Polymathic Round Table paid subscription will get you premium subscription status for your choice of 5 of the 12 Round Table members. You may procure more at $12 per year each. This, I believe, is a fair 'fee for service' or subscription price. My goal is to actually make this service the best source of news, analysis and commentary available anywhere.<br /><br />The top ten newsletters on Substack average $2,000,000 per year of revenue. Substack is new and that will likely increase over the next few years. My goal for The Polymathic Roundtable is that we will eventually have 500,000 subscribers for a total revenue of 30,000,000 USD revenue. This translates to $1,750,000 per year of income for the average Round Table member. This is will be a usual income for Polymaths.</span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Polymathica Central will enable Polymaths and serve Polymathicans in a growing number of ways and the initial 100 Founders Group is what will make it all happen. Western Culture is fragmenting and if you don't want to be stuck with the choice between Woke and Right wing, you need to support alternative futures for yourself. Polymathica may be your preferred cultural home.</span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">If you are interested in being a Polymathica Central Founder, you begin by becoming a Founder Subscriber. Your annual dues are $210. This is used to fund the organizational development process that will include advertising, promotion and administration. We will have articles and Zoom meetings where we will discuss the subdomain productive activities that you may want to consider. Other Founders, especially those who will construct Polymathica Central may contribute other suggestions.<br /><br />The advertising process itself will involve promoting articles, encouraging readers to become free subscribers and from this group we will recruit founding members. The membership fee for Founding Membership will finance this process. Because of that, Founders will have access to the growing subscriber list to undertake their project.<br /><br />Early on, I will encourage one or more Founders to create a subdomain for crowdfunding. Acquiring and developing a subdomain will not be free and often may require a small, private equity round of financing. This will not only enable our subdomain enterprises, it will provide an opportunity for substantial capital appreciation among Polymathicans.<br /><br />If you are interested in becoming part of the Founding team, I suggest that you join as soon as possible. I am limiting this group to 100 and it is best to grab your place and get to work before someone else does. If you want to support the development of Polymathica Central and incidentally the Polymathic subculture, do join as a paid subscription to my Newsletter. We will work on increasing the premium services that are provided to paid subscribers. Rest assured that much of your support will be used to grow the ranks of Polymathicans.<br /></span></span></b><br /></p>Michael's Resumehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15472400070847709603noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-239620140160681751.post-48632308294669760312022-11-13T01:46:00.000-05:002022-11-13T01:46:57.082-05:00Lifespans of 100+ are a reasonable assumption<p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b>Most life expectancy tables do not distinguish on the basis of</b><b> income, which have an effect on lifespan. Of these, income has the greatest
effect and it is increasing over time, as well. At age 65, the sex
difference has decreased from 4.2 to 2.4 years. The difference between
white and black has decreased from 1.4 years to 1.1. However, during
the same time, as we see below, for white 50 year old males, the
difference between the lowest and highest quintile has increased from
around 6 years to 12.7 years. Furthermore, the upper 40% of 50 year old
males are experiencing an increase in lifespan of about 2.25 years per
decade compared to 1.6 years per decade for males in total. </b><br />
</span></span><b style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></b>
<br />
</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-d5SjINGjjCs/W2u3breIYKI/AAAAAAAAB98/4Vi7yFvZn2ILzuOeyLNz8OE0VL9M2JSRACPcBGAYYCw/s1600/150925-inequality-poor-rich-US-Wonk-Blog.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="542" data-original-width="679" height="318" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-d5SjINGjjCs/W2u3breIYKI/AAAAAAAAB98/4Vi7yFvZn2ILzuOeyLNz8OE0VL9M2JSRACPcBGAYYCw/s400/150925-inequality-poor-rich-US-Wonk-Blog.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><p>
<b style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></b>
<b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Because
of this, not surprisingly, U.S. Presidents, who are primarily white
males and well into the upper quintile of income are now living well
into their 90s. Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan, died at 93, George H.W.
Bush lived to 94 and Jimmy Carter has already managed 97. This,
however, as would be expected, is a new phenomenon. Prior to these
four, only John Adams made it to 90 and only just. So,
the last three Presidents to die have also been the three oldest
Presidents and Jimmy Carter will exceed all of those. </span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><br />
The
break-point seems to be for those born around 1910. The four Presidents
before Ford, Bush, Reagan and Carter (not including Kennedy) lived to
an average of 78 or 15 years less. These are small data sets and,
consequently, not very trustworthy. Since the break point seems to be
around 1910, I decided to look at lists of other prominent people in
government and see if the trend continues. <br />
<br />
Vice
Presidents are problematical because they often become President. So, I
looked at Secretaries of State. There are nine born after 1910 that I
counted, three of whom are still alive, but in their 90s. The data set
averages 88, compared to the preceding nine who lived, on average, to
76. This is not as exaggerated, but it still is a 12 year difference.
Three of the nine are still alive, so ultimately, this could approach
the age of the last four Presidents.<br />
<br />
</span></span></b></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">
<span style="color: red;"><a href="https://www.aeaweb.org/conference/2016/retrieve.php?pdfid=1025">https://www.aeaweb.org/conference/2016/retrieve.php?pdfid=1025</a></span><br />
<br />The
men who were 50 38.8 years prior to 2010 are now dying at aged 88.8.
To clarify, the subject men were born in 1921. However, if you are 50
now you were born in 1972 or 51 years later. As we see, the life
expectancy has been increased by .225 years per year or 51X.225=11.5
years. That means the 50 year old of today, in the target group has a
life expectancy of 88.8+11.5=100.3<br />
<br />
So,
if you are a man, around 50 years old and in the upper two quintiles in
income, you should expect to live well into your 90s and quite possibly
into your 100s. That is without any extraordinary medical
breakthroughs. That is just based upon current trends. Oddly, that
expectation doesn't change much with your age. That is because, if you
are under 50, you have a non-zero chance of dying before you reach 50
and if you are over 50, you have a higher life expectancy because you
survived to an age over 50. So, for example, a 72 year old man who was
in the top two quintiles when he was 50, still has a life expectancy of
98.3 or only 1.3 years less than the 50 year old even though he is
twenty years older. <br />
<br /></span></span></b><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">
But,
that is not the end of it. There are reasons to believe that the
linear increase in life expectancy of .225 years per year could start to
level out. Admittedly, it includes all men and is just a 7 year trend
but the CDC chart appears to be leveling off at about 87 years. A
growing percentage of people in their 90s are reaching the end of the
road with technologies reducing early death from cancer and heart
disease. Additional increases may require dealing with what appear to
be the most common causes of death for people over 100. These are <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29590362" target="_blank">frailty</a>, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3181909/" target="_blank">Alzheimer's Disease</a> and <a href="https://academic.oup.com/biomedgerontology/article/59/4/M361/637769" target="_blank">Disseminated Amyloidosis</a>.
The success in treating these diseases and extending life expectancy
past the mid-90s or so may result in a different trajectory in life
expectancy increase. Of course, it could be faster or slower.<br />
<br />
It is now understood that progressive resistance strength training substantially <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4712448/" target="_blank">postpones frailty</a>. However, the loss of<a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3444680/" target="_blank"> mitochondria</a>, <a href="https://www.cell.com/trends/molecular-medicine/fulltext/S1471-4914(18)30181-3" target="_blank">cell senescence</a> and <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6165967/" target="_blank">sarcopenia</a>,
the underlying causes of frailty can be delayed through exercise but,
ultimately, increasing age will overcome the benefit. More needs to be
done in order to decrease frailty over the age of 100. Part of the
cause of mitochondrial malfunction has to do with the failure of <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5576425/" target="_blank">autophagy</a> especially mitophagy. There is strong evidence that <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5514379/" target="_blank">cellular senescence contributes to mitochondrial dysfunction</a> and may be a primary contributor to gerontological frailty.<br />
<br />
Fortunately,
the health problems associated with aging due to the accumulation of
senescent cells appear to be on the verge of a solution. Over the last
decade research has demonstrated that clearing senescent cells from aged
mice dramatically returned them to a more youthful phenotype. Of
course, the mechanisms may be useful in short lived animals but not in
humans. However, there is an accumulating body of evidence that
cellular senescence may be the cause of much of the <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5514379/" target="_blank">elder phenotype in humans</a>. However, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6326665/" target="_blank">senolytics</a>, while eliminating senescent cells, also eliminate healthy ones and further research is needed.<br />
<br />Two FDA approved drugs, Metformin and Rapamycin also appear to extend lifespan. <br />
<br />
Metformin,
prescribed to treat type 2 diabetes was found in a retrospective study
to extend life expectancy in T2DM patients, over time, to above that of
the general population. With typical scientific conservatism, trials
were started with mouse models and have now progressed to human trials.
Initial results suggest that it probably does slow aging. It is being
speculated that it stimulates the same physiological responses as
calorie restriction, a long known technique for life extension. There
are also suggestions that it may improve the energy pathways.<br />
<br />
Rapamycin,
an immunological suppressant used in organ transplants, also appears to
have, in lower doses, anti-aging effects. In middle aged mice, a 90
day course of rapamycin <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4996648/" target="_blank">increased median life expectancy by 60%</a>. However, genetically heterogenous mice, while still experiencing a statistically significant increase in lifespan, had<a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19587680" target="_blank"> substantially less increase.</a>
Of course, as is the case with virtually all research using mouse
models, the response is far more dramatic than it is in humans. The use
and positive results of a 90 day course of treatment confounds the
generally accepted assumption that Rapamycin extends lifespan by <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4207939/" target="_blank">reducing the incidence of cancer</a>.<br />
<br />
Of
these three regimens, two of which are deliverable in 90 day
chemotherapy treatments, the senolytics seem to be the most effective in
modifying the elderly phenotype, while Metformin and Rapamycin extend
lifespan, they may not necessarily extend healthspan. <br />
<br />
As
stated earlier there are reasons to believe that, in the absence of
fundamental breakthroughs, life expectancy may be asymptotic just above
100. One study that applied the Gompertz law to human senescence rate
found an asymptote at <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5669524/" target="_blank">104</a>.
However, since senolytics clear accumulated senescent cells, that
technology, if successful, may lift or even eliminate that limit to
lifespan. <br />
<br />
A University of Michigan postmortem study of 7 supercentarians found that 6 of them died of <a href="http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.397.3436&rep=rep1&type=pdf" target="_blank">amyloidosis,</a>
a disease closely related to Alzheimer's. In combination with a
senolytic therapy, this could result in much longer lifespans. How much
longer is difficult to determine because, until people routinely exceed
115, we cannot be sure what further medical challenges may surface. It
is only in the last decade that amyloidosis has surfaced as a problem
to be solved.<br />
<br />
We
see that extending current trends for the top 40% of the population in
income leads to life expectancy of just under 100 for men and just over
100 for women. This life expectancy only increases slightly for young
people (~30) compared to older people (~70). We hope that this lifespan
will be driven down to lower income levels until they are routine for
everyone. However, the reasons for lower life expectancies among lower income men are not clear. <br /><br />Healthspans also are likely to increase, partially from an
understanding that exercise slows ageing and partially from senolytics.
While life expectancy over 100 and possibly over 115 is possible, it
will rely upon medical breakthroughs that, while currently under study
and promising, are not yet demonstrated.<br /><br />So, my current
assessment is that people today should plan on living to about 100 (with
the understanding that there is a wide distribution) and, if so
inclined, realistically hope for 115 or more.<br />
<br />
</span></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><br /></span></span><br /></span></b>Michael's Resumehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15472400070847709603noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-239620140160681751.post-91484436157704430082022-11-12T06:38:00.000-05:002022-11-12T06:38:04.289-05:00A Couple More Tweaks to My Newsletter<p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">I originally imagined that my newsletter would correct the false narratives of both the Left and the Right and that I would leave it at that. However, I am discovering that it is really too narrowly focused to function properly. In reality I cannot divorce my efforts to solidify a community identity for the intellectually sophisticated from my efforts to promulgate an objectively supportable world view from my desire to correct 'misinformation' that is presented through the Legacy Media (formerly the Mainstream Media).<br /><br />So, I will broaden my scope. I am 'in process' on four books. They are :<br /><br /></span></span></b></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>JA</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/>
<w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/>
<w:OverrideTableStyleHps/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="false"
DefSemiHidden="false" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="371">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Normal Indent"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="footnote text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="annotation text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="header"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="footer"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="table of figures"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="envelope address"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="envelope return"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="footnote reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="annotation reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="line number"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="page number"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="endnote reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="endnote text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="table of authorities"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="macro"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="toa heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Closing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Signature"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text Indent"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Message Header"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Salutation"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Date"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text First Indent"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text First Indent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Note Heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text Indent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text Indent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Block Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Hyperlink"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="FollowedHyperlink"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Document Map"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Plain Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="E-mail Signature"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Top of Form"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Bottom of Form"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Normal (Web)"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Acronym"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Address"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Cite"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Code"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Definition"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Keyboard"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Preformatted"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Sample"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Typewriter"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Variable"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Normal Table"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="annotation subject"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="No List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Outline List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Outline List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Outline List 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Simple 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Simple 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Simple 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Colorful 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Colorful 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Colorful 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table 3D effects 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table 3D effects 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table 3D effects 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Contemporary"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Elegant"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Professional"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Subtle 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Subtle 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Web 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Web 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Web 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Balloon Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Theme"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" QFormat="true"
Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" QFormat="true"
Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" QFormat="true"
Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" QFormat="true"
Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" QFormat="true"
Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" QFormat="true"
Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="41" Name="Plain Table 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="42" Name="Plain Table 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="43" Name="Plain Table 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="44" Name="Plain Table 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="45" Name="Plain Table 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="40" Name="Grid Table Light"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46" Name="Grid Table 1 Light"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51" Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52" Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46" Name="List Table 1 Light"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51" Name="List Table 6 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52" Name="List Table 7 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 6"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
</style>
<![endif]--><u><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">The
Polymathican Subculture</span></span></b></span></u><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><u><span style="color: #2b00fe;">:
</span></u><span style="line-height: 115%;"><u><span style="color: #2b00fe;">Values, Education, Careers, Research, Lifestyles
and Community</span></u><br />Its purpose is to help solidify a community identity for intellectually sophisticated people and to present a preliminary roadmap to manifestation.</span></span></span></b></li><li><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/>
<w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/>
<w:OverrideTableStyleHps/>
</w:Compatibility>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="false"
DefSemiHidden="false" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="371">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Normal Indent"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="footnote text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="annotation text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="header"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="footer"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="table of figures"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="envelope address"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="envelope return"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="footnote reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="annotation reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="line number"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="page number"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="endnote reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="endnote text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="table of authorities"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="macro"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="toa heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Closing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Signature"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text Indent"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Message Header"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Salutation"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Date"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text First Indent"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text First Indent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Note Heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text Indent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text Indent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Block Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Hyperlink"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="FollowedHyperlink"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Document Map"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Plain Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="E-mail Signature"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Top of Form"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Bottom of Form"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Normal (Web)"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Acronym"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Address"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Cite"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Code"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Definition"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Keyboard"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Preformatted"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Sample"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Typewriter"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Variable"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Normal Table"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="annotation subject"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="No List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Outline List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Outline List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Outline List 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Simple 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Simple 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Simple 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Colorful 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Colorful 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Colorful 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table 3D effects 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table 3D effects 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table 3D effects 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Contemporary"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Elegant"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Professional"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Subtle 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Subtle 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Web 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Web 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Web 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Balloon Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Theme"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" QFormat="true"
Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" QFormat="true"
Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" QFormat="true"
Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" QFormat="true"
Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" QFormat="true"
Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" QFormat="true"
Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="41" Name="Plain Table 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="42" Name="Plain Table 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="43" Name="Plain Table 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="44" Name="Plain Table 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="45" Name="Plain Table 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="40" Name="Grid Table Light"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46" Name="Grid Table 1 Light"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51" Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52" Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46" Name="List Table 1 Light"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51" Name="List Table 6 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52" Name="List Table 7 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 6"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:8.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:107%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
</style>
<![endif]--><u><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="line-height: 107%;">A New Enlightenment:</span></span></span></b></span></u><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="line-height: 107%;"><u><span style="color: #2b00fe;"> Crafting an
Information Age Political Philosophy</span></u><br />The Political Philosophy that was developed during the Age of Enlightenment was marginally sufficient to sustain liberal principles during the Industrial Age. However, it was not a complete philosophy and the cracks, as the Information Age emerges, are beginning to show. So, here, I will make an attempt at updating the liberal paradigm.</span></span></span></b></li><li><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="line-height: 107%;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><u>The Death of Capitalism: The Economics of the Information Age</u></span><br />The 20th Century was dominated by a political argument between the principles of Adam Smith and Karl Marx. As we enter the Information Age, they both are becoming progressively more irrelevant. Rather than an upper class of 'owners', a middle class of 'manufacturers' and a lower class of 'service workers', we are headed toward an extremely affluent society comprised of an upper class of 'creators, owners and deciders' and a lower class of 'dignified service providers'. So, everything changes.</span></span></span></b></li><li><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="line-height: 107%;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><u>The Rise of the Microstate: Intentional Cultural Diversity</u></span><br />When the principles of representative democracy and the Westphalian nation state collide with Information Age realities, we see a rising sense of alienation among cultural and ideological minorities and a rising clamor for divorce from the traditional nation state within which they find themselves. While this is touched upon lightly in A New Enlightenment, it is really so profound that it deserves a deeper and in many ways more pragmatic consideration.</span></span></span></b><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"> </span></span></b><br /></li></ul><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><br />While these four books will clarify much of what I mean by an objectively supportable world view, they are in the future and my article writing via this newsletter is in the present. So, I cannot simply say, 'Wait for the book' when I make assertions. I do need to deal with these ideas in the interim, while leaving the ultimate argumentation to such time as the books are published. That is in the near future.<br /></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Also, there are other topics that will not be considered in my upcoming books, but are still central to creating an objectively supportable world view. Among these are:</span></span></b></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">The Legacy Media reports on the basis of an alarmist, rather than balanced, view of climate change. Even at my very accelerated rate of learning, I have had to dedicate thousands of hours to becoming expert in this arena and I don't expect a similar effort from my readers. However, I cannot ignore climate change in my ongoing effort to help Polymathicans (people who subscribe to the polymathic subculture) in their quest for an objectively supportable world view. The climate alarmist have made it too central to the world view for which they argue. On the other hand, the Rightside media's take that there is 'nothing to see here', isn't right, either.</span></span></b></li><li><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">The New Enlightenment must, necessarily, consider the diversity of social structure and the forces, both exogenous and endogenous, that drive that diversity. While they all will manifest in the fullness of time, the breakdown of marriage and family is current and very poorly understood. Women are quickly truncating the population of men that are allowed to procreate. An increasing percentage of men are becoming both career and family discouraged. In addition to increasing drug related deaths, violent deaths and suicide, this also contributes to male antisocial behavior. There will not be a single resolution but rather a multifurcation of social solutions, many of which are mutually incompatible.<br /></span></span></b></li><li><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">The energy picture just could not be more screwed up. We are being treated to a vision of a world of electric cars fueled by clean energy that just can't happen, at least not in the near term. The 'powers that be' are killing fossil fuels faster than replacements are being implemented. Some real straight talk is needed based upon 'what is', 'what is hoped for'. As I discuss in an upcoming article, the objective is not to get you into an electric car running on clean electricity, but rather to push you out of the suburbs (if you are currently there) and into public mass transit.<br /></span></span></b></li><li><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">The socioeconomic classes are not going away. Equality of opportunity can be constructively pursued, but equity of outcome is a fantasy. Social class, rather than being determined by the social class of one's parents or by one's 'identity', is very quickly becoming determined by educational attainment, which is primarily determined by IQ which is primarily determine by parental genetic and environmental contributions. The Simonton-Hollingworth Interval and Denissen Mutual Understanding Range (citations in The Inappropriately Excluded article) define socioeconomic classes. Even if there are no structural impediments to class mobility, 1/6 will fall one socioeconomic class below that of their parents, 1/6 will rise one class above and 2/3 will find themselves in their parent's class. No 'privilege' required. That is just how IQ distributes.<br /></span></span></b></li><li><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">We hear a whole lot about falling life expectancy and it is real. However, it is mostly caused by falling life expectancy in the lower half of the socioeconomic ranks. The upper 20%-30% have been experiencing a 2.4 year per decade increase in life expectancy while the lower quintile, primarily because of lifestyle issues, have been falling by a bit more than that. While upper classes are experiencing impressive gains in life expectancy, the 'radical life extension' movement, though inspiring, is not the most likely scenario. Rather the evidence suggests that life expectancy, at least for the upper 50% of the population will increase to a mean of about 100 and then will likely stall. Still, that, compared to the historical 80 years or so, will have profound effects on society.<br /><br /></span></span></b><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><br /></span></span></b></li></ul><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Lastly, and I would say most importantly, as the microstates arise, one of them will need to be Polymathica. However, prior to the physical manifestation of Subcultural microstates, ministates and city states, virtual, subculturally defined communities are forming. The Rightside 'parallel economy' is certainly the most developed example, though 'green', Christian, polyamorous, et alia certainly are coalescing. The Right doesn't tweet. They use Gettr. They don't watch Youtube; they watch Rumble. They have their own fintech, web hosting, cell phone services, etc. We Polymathicans need to do the same, not because we are suffering active hostility, but because our idea of a preferred lifestyle is so different from the rest of society that the mainstream social media is not user friendly.</span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">I have named our parallel economy, Polymathica Central. Of course, those Polymathicans who actually build it may choose a different name. Whatever its name, it will accumulate Polymathicans and make them available to each other. That may be for social media or it may be to find investors, donors, customers, audience, etc. It needs to have available educational resources from K-12, continuing education, professional certification as well as access to an online library to assist in lifelong, autodidactic learning. It should also kick off a process of creating 'bricks and mortar' polymathic communities.<br /></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">To facilitate that, premium membership to my newsletter will be entitled, Polymathica Central Founders and will be used as a way to accumulate 100 highly motivated people to undertake projects that will make it all happen. I will post an article on just that. However, to clarify, it is a working group. If you join, you will be expected to create something.</span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">If you become a Founder, first, I will be publishing important information that will be circulated only to Founders. It will be a kind of manifesto which I expect will be heavily modified as the 100 Founders weigh in. However, we will also have regular Zoom meetings. I will be creating some of these and they will be topic specific and primarily oriented toward creating meaningful and effective work groups. Of course, other Founders may schedule Zoom calls, as well, an I expect that the work groups will.<br /></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Founders Group membership is most certainly not just about talk. Our purpose is to effectuate a Polymathica Central Internet presence that will begin the process of creating the Polymathic subculture. Polymathica Central as it matures will facilitate discussion, create polymathic online communities and provide many, many polymathic career possibilities. Basically, we all can talk about being polymathic and/or Polymaths or we can make it mean something real. I understand that most people will talk. But, if I can get 100 Founders who will undertake the tasks of making Polymathica Central a reality, that will be enough.<br /></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">While not necessary, I assume that most of the Founders will aspire to Polymath certification. Creating a certification process is essential to making 'Polymath' a designation that is something more than self-assigned aggrandizement. Anyone can call themselves Polymath, (are you equating yourself to Leonardo da Vinci?) but Certified Polymath means that other Polymaths agree. Circular, I know but there is no other way to start it.<br /><br />The Founders Group, upon success, will have not just contributed to the formation of an Information Age, virtual nation, but will also have a properly remunerated place within the community. That means, in addition to all the intangible rewards, incomes can be expected in the six and seven figure range. That is a typical Information Age lifestyle.<br /></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">I do not want to be overly involved in the creation, growth and operation of Polymathic Central. I learn, I think and I write. Nowhere do I say that I am an entrepreneur and I am not. However, early on in the process, I imagined that I would form a Cooperative of Polymaths called The Polymathic Roundtable. That will enable the writing part. We will write articles, but I imagine that we will also have actual roundtable discussions, likely via Zoom and published on a video platform. <br /><br />The going rate for a subscription on substack is $60 per year, though I have seen as low as $50 and as high as $100. In truth, few can write enough articles to actually justify that as fair value. Yet, in order to promote one's Newsletter, that level of revenue per subscriber is required. Essentially, there is an inherent cost to acquiring a paid subscriber and the cost increases as the subscription price increases. Many worthy newsletters just can't find a break even point.<br /><br />Hence, The Polymathic Roundtable. The Roundtable will be comprised of the 12 most capable Polymaths out there. (Wouldn't it be a kick if I wasn't one of them? The market will decide) For $60 per year, you will be able to subscribe to the newsletters of five of them. You also will be subscribed to The Polymath, which will, monthly, publish the very best articles of all 12. However, perhaps the biggest benefit is that you will have real time access to the Roundtable Discussions, themselves, and have access to the superchats where subscribers can discuss the topics themselves.</span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Of course, other Polymathicans will write articles, vlog, write books, publish podcasts (supported by Substack), etc. And they will have an easy route to success because Polymathica Central will give them an easily accessible audience. I will publish more about this in future articles in an effort to attract Founders'. However, the point here is that my Newsletter will be advocating for Polymathica Central and recruiting a Founders Group.<br /><br />I will also continue to expand and elaborate on the tab function that Substack provides. My tabs include Nomadic Polymath because that is quite different than my other articles and you may or may not be interested. By unsubscribing you will not receive Nomadic Polymath email notifications, but will continue to receive notifications for my main articles. You can still go to MichaelWFerguson.substack.com and read Nomadic Polymath whenever you want.</span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">I will be publishing articles that will be available to free subscribers. However, over time, an increasing amount of content, once other Roundtable members join, will be for paid subscribers, only. It is only fair that people who create valuable content be remunerated for it. However, I do not want to dismiss the patronage impulse, either. In other words, when Patreon started it was primarily a way for people to support people who were doing things that the supporters wanted to continue. It was only over time that it morphed into a 'fee for service' platform. I do encourage the patronage impulse. I am advocating for Polymathicans or intellectually sophisticated people with the intent to improve their life choices. If you want that to continue, supporting it primarily as a patron is also much appreciated.</span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Lastly, I do want MichaelWFerguson.Substack.com, as it evolves into Polymathica Central to be a community and for the comment function to be widely used. If you are a paid subscriber, you can do that now and I encourage you to do so.<br /></span></span></b></p>Michael's Resumehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15472400070847709603noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-239620140160681751.post-78390918871248199592022-11-02T06:22:00.000-04:002022-11-04T05:59:23.119-04:00A Moderation Suggestion to Elon<p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b>Granting free speech to others is not a natural human impulse. It is very unsettling to think that one's world view is a perspective rather than based upon absolute truths. To institutionalize free speech is to tacitly accept that 'truth' is more relative than that. It doesn't mean that the notion of 'my truth' is supported, but conflicting evidence is the norm in the real world. So, the impulse to 'moderate' misinformation is not surprising. However, from the Russian collusion hoax to the source of the SARS-2 virus to Hunter Biden laptop, the misinformation that was censored by the major social media platforms often turned out likely to be the more correct side of the story.</b></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b>It is understandable that a company that offers a website that is ostensibly a public forum will feel a responsibility to have their site to be usable and that the venom that can arise when contentious issues are discussed won't intimidate participants to the extent that they do not participate to their fullest desire. So, the first impulse is to ban hate speech. The problem is that people have different tolerances to hostile rhetoric . Wherever the site sets their hurdle it will be too low for some and too high for others.</b></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b>Sadly, on most of the largest sites that have been banning hate speech have now morphed into banning 'misinformation'. The implication is that free speech does not protect speech that is wrong. In fact, free speech does protect questionable statements and, in fact, it protects outright lies. Still, at the worst, the people who were against COVID-19 vaccines, believed that Trump actually won the 2020 election, and that fear of Climate Change is overblown, etc. are mistaken. History, evidence and the fullness of time often strengthens positions such as these that had been censored or throttled as misinformation.</b></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b>Elon Musk cannot 'fix' Twitter simply by tweaking the algorithms or changing the members of moderation boards. A completely different approach is required. I advocate the method delineated below. It will involve moderation on these three levels.<br /><br /></b></span></span></p><ol style="text-align: left;"><li><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Twitter should have algorithms that flag potentially illegal speech or posts that appear to be reasonable evidence of crimes. These should be referred to law enforcement. They transcend simple censoring or banning. <br /></span></span></b></li><li><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"> Users should be able to set blanket editing on their accounts. For example, if a person does not want any pornography, they can select that setting and it will be 100% throttled. If the algorithm allows them to see something they don't want to see, they can flag it and similar posts will be throttled. These blanket consumer based censoring algorithms should expand to include ones that might offend people on both sides.<br /></span></span></b></li><li><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">When a person bans someone or throttles them, others who are statistically similar (banned by the same people) will be downgraded. Essentially, they will be throttled more than before the ban. When you like or retweet, that lowers their throttling and those who are similar. The Statistics behind this idea is complex but this is ultimately doable.</span></span></b></li></ol><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">In essence, each user will, over time, create their own custom silo that will be a fuzzy set when compared with other users. This will create 'environments'. Some users will be inclined toward STEM, others toward the arts. Some will create ribald and 'in your face' environments while others will be more urbane. That is the proper implementation of free speech. Essentially, you are free to say whatever you want, and I am free not to hear it. It is not Twitter's responsibility, or any other social media platform purporting to be a public square, to assure that the public square is carefully moderated to eliminate harsh rhetoric and/or misinformation. They can, through modern technology, allow those in the public square to choose the audiences to which they belong and what speech they will hear.</span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"> <br /></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><br /></span></span></b><br /></p>Michael's Resumehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15472400070847709603noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-239620140160681751.post-8474576120206199672022-07-29T08:34:00.000-04:002022-07-29T08:34:51.981-04:00Simulated Artificial Intelligence Is Imminent<p><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Robots are advancing at a extraordinary rate. They are doing so in many dimensions. Boston Dynamics' Atlas is more agile than most humans. </b></span></span> <br /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/yqF8g3xcD5c" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe> </p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b>Now U.K. based company, Engineered Arts is setting new standards for realistic facial expressions.</b> </span></span><br /></p><p></p><p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/RCi3dib4u4c" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe> </p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Obviously, manual dexterity is also central to a successfully functioning general purpose robot. Most of these research efforts have been directed at prosthetics but they can also be applied to robots.</span></span></b></p><p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/DqGq5mnd_n4" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe> </p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b>People tend to focus on the
idea that a robot might become 'conscious' and, thus, be more similar to a human.
However, that is really not the most functional product feature for human use. That,
after all, is why, if they are, robots will be built and bought. </b></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b>The core of the artificial intelligence component will look like a juiced up Alexa. If you ask your robot to play a game of chess with you, through the onboard natural language program it will access an Internet chess program and play the game. If you ask for </b></span><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b><span>Coq au vin it will find a recipe on the Internet and prepare it for you. If you ask your robot to get you a beer out of the frig, it probably doesn't need the Internet. However, by piggy backing off of the knowledge easily found on the Internet, your robot will appear to be nearly omniscient.</span></b></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b>The Kurzweil crowd is fascinated with 'AGI' The 'Singularity' is a time when they imagine that a superintelligence, functionally incomprehensible to humans will emerge. It is generally taken to likely happen between 2040 and 2050. It is odd that in this 'Singularity' community to which many high profile people have belonged, the notion of more or less unending exponential growth in technology is credulously accepted. This is odd because a review of the history of technology strongly suggests that technologies progress sigmoidally or on an S-curve. For example, if one plotted the maximum speed attainable by humans as an exponential curve, we should be exceeding the speed of light by now. Of course, we are not even close to that. In the 20th Century, the growth in maximum speed hit a point of inflection and has been slowing down ever since.</b></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b>It is important to recognize that it is extremely difficult to estimate the inflection point or the asymptote in most cases. We have good reason to believe that the 'Moore's Law' https://www.synopsys.com/glossary/what-is-moores-law.html exponential growth has reached its point of inflection. However, the development of simulated intelligence in computers and robots is more complex than just Moore's Law. There are other technological, economic and software components that affect the emergence of Artificial General Intelligence. Still, a point at which humans become secondary to computer intelligence is not a foregone conclusion. </b></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b>There is also the matter of what may exist in the lab and what is implemented in the general society. Robots and computer based AI, as well, are first and foremost a product. There are, for many reasons, a huge inventory of technologies, demonstrated in the lab, that do not get commercialized because they are not attractive products. It is very likely that a humanoid personal assistant robot, as an advancement upon Alexa and its competitors, would be a very attractive product, even if it was very expensive. However, there is no clear benefit to making them 'conscious' and there are reasons to not give them any form of independent volition. They are a product as a servant and servants are intended to have very limited initiative. </b></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b>In the above example, if I tell my robot to get me a beer out of the frig, I don't expect it to start lecturing me on the calories and refuse to do so. If I asked my robot to play chess with me and I instruct it to play at a FIDE of 1,000, I would not expect it to up its rating when it started to lose. If it did such things, I would take it into the shop and ask that it be 'fixed'. A robot that is conscious, reflective and self-motivated is like a flying car. Even if it is technically feasible, it won't be commercialized because it is a bad product. </b></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b>I do not know if the super-intelligent, conscious AGI is even possible, but, if so, it is not likely to exist outside of labs for quite some time. However, we are right on the verge of creating a humanoid robot that is an extremely capable personal assistant. A rudimentary version is probably feasible right now simply by creating a joint venture between Boston Dynamics, and Engineered Arts and an inclusion of a few subcontractors. The first commercially available robot will likely be introduced prior to 2030. It will likely have limited sales at a 300K 2022USD price point. However, like most emergent technologies, over the following decade, the price will likely fall significantly and, perhaps to the point where they become common in middle class households.</b></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b>When I was young, fantastical technologies were limited to Science Fiction. Because of Arthur C. Clarke, Isaac Asimov, et alia, as I reached young adulthood in the late 1960s, more practical and rigorous analysis of future technologies began surfacing. However, there was still a gee-whiz flavor to them. Then authors, such as Alvin Toffler, started writing books purporting to present hard-boiled looks at future technologies and that tradition has remained right through to today with Ray Kurzweil and Peter Diamandis.While they report on actual research, however, they suffer from what I call, 'Everything that can go right, will go right'. Even a preliminary review of their history demonstrates that most of what could go right, won't.<br /><br />I spent my career in business and I worked in various aspects of future planning. We were truly hard-boiled, because when things didn't turn out well, we'd get called on the carpet. Advanced humanoid robots powered by Internet based, simulated artificial intelligence is a 'today' technology. We could form a joint venture between Boston Dynamics, Engineered Arts and Amazon right now and start the product development process. No basic research is needed; the technologies already exist.</b></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b>Will this fundamentally change the world? Probably. Humanoid robot personal assistants and home domestic robots will likely be second behind only the house as the largest personal expenditures. Of course, our homes will likely be highly automated with robotics that is not humanoid. The robotic vacuum that wanders about our apartment today is just the first of many examples. Essentially, household chores will become a thing of the past.<br /></b></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b><br /></b></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b><br /></b></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b> </b></span></span><br /></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b><span><br /></span></b></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b><span> </span></b></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b><span><br /></span></b></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b> </b></span></span></p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"> </span></span></b><p></p>Michael's Resumehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15472400070847709603noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-239620140160681751.post-86275848683402202222022-07-05T01:58:00.000-04:002022-07-05T01:58:02.777-04:00Newsletter 9: Expanding Substack, Guns & Abortion, The Administrative State<p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: black;">I decided to wait until Tuesday to post my newsletter this week. I suspected that, with about 60% of my readers being American, I'd get lost in the holiday shuffle. We will return to Saturday night (U.S. time) next week.</span></span><br /></span></span></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">My
ultimate business model will have a limited amount of open content with the majority of the content being 'fee for service'. Right
now, I am distributing my newsletter to everyone at no cost in order to build my
contacts list, but that is temporary. Eventually, only first level paid
subscriptions will receive my weekly newsletters and will also receive periodic 'white
papers' covering more complex issues. I will also publish e-books at an
additional (though nominal) charge. There is also a 'Founder' level. They will have access to my books at no cost and periodic open web based discussions which will make them true insiders. <br /></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Our newsletter continues to
grow at a non-trivial rate (about 17% per week). Our history is still
too short to draw any definitive conclusions about our growth, specifically as to whether it is,
in fact, exponential or linear. Last week, 38% of my views were from
subscribers, 38% were direct, 11% were from Substack, itself, 10% were
from Facebook and 2% were from Linked In. The key is the 38% with a
source of 'direct'. These, according to Substack are people who entered
MichaelWFerguson.Substack.com directly into their browser but, in truth, they are visitors whose source is not known. One very interesting statistic is that past issues are gaining readers, suggesting that 'word of mouth' is a major contributor. </span></span></b><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">If this is correct, we will have around 660K readers by this time next
year. That will give us the power to meaningfully interfere with the severely biased Leftish and Rightish narratives. Of course, the growth will be sigmoidal, so there will be a point
of inflection and an asymptote, so our enthusiasm should be tempered. </span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">I
believe strongly in the reverence for and pursuit of intellectual
sophistication. That means I strongly argue for lifelong learning and
an assiduous pursuit of objectivity. Intellectual sophistication, if
pursued aggressively throughout one's life, will result in an
objectively supportable world view. This leads to a world view that
does not conform to the world views of either the Right Silo or the Left
Silo. I will be publishing a white paper entitled 'Summa Caye' in
which I describe in detail a community that adheres to the cultural
perspectives that flow from an objectively supportable world view. Its
purpose is hypothetical, essentially describing what society will look
like when all the mistakes are fixed, but that does not make it less
valuable.</span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><u><span style="font-size: large;">Substack as Your Main Social Media Platform<br /></span></u></span></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">I am beginning to think that Substack, though designed to enable professional writers, represents a very credible general purpose social media platform. So, I am going to advocate that all of you who are less than enamored of Facebook, Linkedin, Twitter, etc. consider creating your own substack account. While you <u><i>can</i></u> charge for subscriptions, it is not necessary. By using Substack, in addition to not worrying about censorship or shadow banning, your content is yours as is your 'contacts' list. You can also operate a mostly free account that does have some premium material. It is pretty flexible.</span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">One of the things I like most about Substack is that when I post something, I can choose to notify all my subscribers or only paid subscribers. And, unlike Locals, it works even on a free account. Since you can, at your discretion, give free subscribers the benefits of "paid subscribers", it really can be used to set up levels of distribution. Since there is a third 'founders' level, you really have even more flexibility. I would like to see Substack increase flexibility over time.</span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Another feature I like about Substack's system is that if you abuse the privilege that subscribers have granted to e-mail notify them, they will unsubscribe. I publish one newsletter per week that takes between 10 minutes and 15 minutes to read. If an e-mail notification one time per week is too much for some, then it is reasonable for that person to unsubscribe. Between 50% and 60% of my subscribers open their e-mail notification every week. And, so far, I have had no unsubscribers. </span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">The podcast functionality is there, but is still rudimentary, but some of the larger Substack creators are using it, so I expect that it will improve. I want 'call in' functionality and video as well. In a way, it might function like the now defunct Google Hangouts. Also, though, for the most part Substack is all about 'fee for service', the video functionality should accommodate ad support.</span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">So, Substack is not yet everything that we would like it to be. I would like to see more format choices, such as font type and size, color, etc. It is better than Facebook but not as good as the blog platforms, like Blogger.com or WordPress. <br /></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">We, intellectually sophisticated people, can be very influential. We tend to be persuasive (Simonton Gap) and accumulate around us people who are inclined to believe, or at least give substantial weight to, what we say. It is one explanation for my Substack growing quickly and primarily through 'Direct' sources. One of my subscribers may repeat something I say. Someone asks, 'Where did you get that?' They answer from MichaelWFerguson.Substack.com and, voila, I have a new view. I suspect that is a contributor to my growth, but if my regular readers have their own substack account, that <a href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-30220-6_11?fbclid=IwAR2dpQ9zvFkVPCxEN2__lpoLlRXqKHCWkKDOBSQjnrlR3v9Uwyx0MPSyT7s" target="_blank">can be supercharged. <br /></a>It will also make us a more efficient and a faster growing intellectually sophisticated community.<br /></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><u><span style="font-size: large;">Guns & Abortion</span></u></span></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Every time a major decision comes down from SCOTUS, my social media blows up with posts and threads that are mostly repeating the points of the Left and Right New Media. It reminds me of just how ignorant people are about the underlying principles of Enlightened nations. The Federalism underlying to U.S. Constitution seems to be particularly elusive for most people. This last week, there were two major rulings and three more that seem to have escaped the attention of the mainstream.<br /></span></span></span></span></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: medium;">SCOTUS decided that New York cannot strictly limit concealed weapons. In this case, SCOTUS decided that the Constitution, specifically the 2nd amendment, does not allow States to unduly restrict the 'bear arms' portion of that 2nd Amendment Right. This is good constitutional law, but it is not very sensible. Bearing arms in a small town in Wyoming is very different than doing so in South Chicago. The former population will likely regularly bear arms as they hunt for venison and fowl. Also, bear, moose, mountain lions, etc. don't listen to reason and may need to be dissuaded. These are serious and legitimate reasons to bear firearms. While there are very strong, some would say compelling, reasons for different carry laws in different locales, SCOTUS is stating that, in order to enable the very sensible restrictions that a densely populated urban community may wish to place on bearing arms, the Constitution will need to be amended. It is beyond the authority of SCOTUS to do so.<br /><br />This notion of gun restrictions is far from new. If you have watched any movies about the U.S., 19th Century 'Wild West', you are likely familiar with the practice of, when entering a saloon, leaving your sidearm at the door. With people drinking and gambling, this is just sensible. An obvious problem with applying that logic to cities is that, while law abiding citizens are likely to obey restrictions on bearing arms, criminals likely will not. In other words, when gang members in South Chicago are shooting each other, and random passers by, they are clearly bearing concealed handguns that they usually have not obtained legally and likely cannot legally own. There are difficulties with disarming the law abiding people when criminals are armed. Law abiding citizens, living in or traveling through high crime districts may carry firearms out of fear but end up shooting innocents, themselves. This is a knotty issue that local communities need to resolve. But they need to do so in a Constitutional way.<br /><br />It is not clear that the framers of the Constitution would have stated the right to bear arms so unambiguously if they were faced with the realities of today. Rifling, though invented in the 15th Century, was not introduced commercially until the 19th Century. This technological advancement made guns much more lethal. Semi-automatic firearms, which obviously allows more shots in the same amount of time, enables more injuries and deaths. Those are very significantly different threats than those faced when the 2nd amendment was originally framed and ratified.<br /><br />It is true that most European countries have more strict gun laws, although often not by much. It is true that there is a correlation between gun ownership and gun violence, however, the causal arrow is never really considered. In other words, do more people buy guns because there is a lot of gun violence and they want to protect themselves, or is the high gun ownership the primary driver of higher rates of gun violence. Or, as I suspect, is it a bit of both? <br /><br />The real issue is whether the extremely high death rate from guns in the U.S. (nearly four times higher than any other EUNA nation) is due primarily to guns, or is it primarily that the U.S. has an extremely violent culture? If AR-15s were not allowed in the hands of young people, while mass school shootings might drop, would it simply be replaced by bombings? That certainly is implied by the 'troubles' of Northern Ireland where gun control was strict, but bombings were never really controlled.</span></span></span></span></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Sadly, this distinction between murders being caused by the availability of guns and murders being caused by a violent society is not discussed. It needs to be and the discussion needs to be bifurcated. The 2nd amendment is clearly not sufficiently nuanced and needs to be revised. However, it is not at all clear that violence will decrease to anything similar to Western Europe. I have often suspected that the reason the Left focuses on gun control is because if they admitted that the problem is primarily cultural, they have no idea how to solve it.<br /><br />While there is a cultural discussion that needs to take place in the aftermath of the SCOTUS gun control decision, that is not the case with the Dobbs v Jackson decision. Though it is being framed as a moral issue, this is strictly a Constitutional issue over Federalism. In other words, is abortion properly regulated at the Federal level or the State level? From the beginning, on the surface, there is something strange with the notion that terminating the life of an adult is restricted by State statute, but terminating the life of a fetus is restricted by Constitutional issues. This was accomplished in Roe v Wade by attempting to cobble together a Constitutional right to privacy that, oddly, didn't seem to apply to anything other than abortion. Roe v Wade was bad law and even if Dobbs v Jackson wasn't the proper resolution, at least, the 'established law' is gone. We can speak of a more enlightened legal position from here.<br /></span></span></span></span></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Nearly everyone is talking as if Dobbs v Jackson outlaws abortion, which, of course, it doesn't. When called on that, some of the more partisan commentators will claim that the GOP, if they take over Congress, will pass a national ban on abortion. There are several things wrong with this appeal to fear. First, even if the Republicans take both the House and the Senate in November of 2022, they don't have sufficient support among their own caucus to pass an absolute ban on abortion. This should be clear from the recent Florida law, which was passed by Republicans that allows abortion on demand to 15 weeks. So, it is reasonable to assume that if a bill was put forth that set an absolute, national ban on abortion, many Republicans would vote against it. The Senate won't have a fillibuster proof Republican majority, so, even if it did pass the House, it wouldn't pass the Senate. Even if that happened, there is still a Democrat President who would veto it. The same is true for the other scare tactics such as claiming that birth control pills would be banned as well.<br /><br />In truth, State legislatures will pass their individual laws. We already know that South Dakota, Texas, Louisiana and likely a few more will ban abortions completely. On the other hand, nearly all of the West Coast and some of the Northeast will have laws that will allow on-demand abortions right up to birth. There is even talk of post birth abortions, which, in addition to making no sense as a term (that isn't an abortion), would not pass Constitutional muster.<br /><br />On the other hand, Democrats are talking about passing a national abortion rights law. Dobbs doesn't preclude that, but if it happened, like a GOP national abortion ban, would likely not be judged as constitutional by this court.</span></span></span></span></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The SCOTUS Dobbs v Jackson majority opinion found no Constitutional right to an abortion. That is reasonable. Essentially, none of the founders were in favor of legal abortions, so if there was a right in the Constitution, it was put there inadvertently. The Washington Post stated that through the 18th and 19th Century, there were no laws making abortion illegal. That is true, but disingenuous. It wasn't necessary. The Hippocratic Oath specifically forbids a Physician from performing one. SCOTUS also did not find a limitation at viability. In this, I believe they were wrong.<br /><br />Imagine a woman, 24 weeks pregnant, is diagnosed with an aggressive cancer. The doctors need to begin treatment immediately, but it will cause a miscarriage. Because her Physicians assess the fetus to be viable, the decision is made to take the fetus out and place it in a neonatal ICU where it does survive. Now suppose a woman comes to a Physician, 24 weeks pregnant, and asks for an abortion. The Physician judges that the fetus is viable. Now the question becomes, 'Does the first fetus enjoy Constitutional protection but the second does not?' If so, that would appear to violate the equal protection clause of Amendment 14 of the U.S. Constitution. So, either the first fetus/baby will not enjoy constitutional protections until it reaches 40 weeks from conception or the second fetus/baby <u><i>will</i></u> enjoy them.<br /><br />Also, if a fetus is viable, performing an abortion would appear to violate medical ethics, as the Hypocrataic Oath states, '</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Similarly I will not give to a woman a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pessary" title="Pessary">pessary</a> to cause abortion.' It also implies that under no circumstances will the Physician do harm. This phrase, though not actually in the Oath, is well known, 'First, do no harm'. While Physicians are not, strictly speaking, bound by the Hypocratic Oath, they are fully bound by a responsibility to practice medicine in an ethical way. One could interpret this to mean that a Physician is required to remove a viable fetus in such a way as to maximize its probability of surviving, irrespective of a mother's wishes.<br /></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: medium;">It should be pointed out that, as leaders in Europe roundly condemn the Dobbs decision, its net result will likely be to make the U.S. more similar to Europe with regard to abortion. Europe has a few countries, like Poland and Malta that have very restrictive abortion laws similar to some states in the U.S. Most, however, have laws that allow on-demand abortion up to between 10 weeks and 14 weeks. A couple, Sweden and U.K. allow later abortion with U.K. setting the limit at 24 weeks or approximately viability. There are only four countries worldwide where abortions have no gestational limits. They are China, North Korea, Vietnam and (in some states) the U.S. In other words, only the most brutal governments condone late term abortion. So, that is not company that one should wish to keep.<br /><br /></span></span></span></span></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></span></span><u><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></u></span></span></span></b></p><p><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><u><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b>The Administrative State</b></span></span></u></span><br /></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b>SCOTUS, last week, severely limited the power of the EPA and, perhaps by extension, all regulatory agencies. Essentially, they decided that the EPA's regulatory authority was limited to specific powers expressly delegated to them by Congress. The hue and din that followed was primarily limited to members of the administrative state and their allies. They understand that this is a threat to their unrestrained power over the populace.<br /><br />Simply put, EUNA has been infected with an unelected, administrative state that has been empowered to create and enforce volumes of government regulations. </b></span></span><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b>They are, in no way, subject to recall nor can they be taken to task by the population that they are regulating. Thee is absolutely nothing democratic about them. Some
people call it 'the deep state' and are routinely ridiculed. President Trump
called it 'the swamp'. Again, the term is probably more of a public relations ploy, that, though clever is a detriment to the cause. Steven K. Bannon, pushes back on these two
terms and refers to it as 'the administrative state'. I, and most careful observers, agree. The term is
less partisan and more accurate. While not well illuminated by the press, the administrative state is one of the greatest threats to Western
civilization and spectacularly illiberal.</b></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b>History gives us a precautionary tale. Rome
fell and more than 1,500 years later the why of it is still be argued.
It was, as is the case with nearly all great empires, a complex issue.
As I repeat again and again, everything is multivariate. However,
according to many, one of the major reasons was that it simply <a href="https://fee.org/articles/bureaucracy-kills-a-lesson-from-rome/" target="_blank">collapsed under the weight of its own bureaucracy.</a> The lesson is very relevant today. Neither the Left Silo nor the Right Silo talks about it, so, of course, I will.</b></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b>There are two problems with the administrative state. The first is the
obvious problem that these people are hired with unlimited terms of employment, and are not elected. They are not subject to recall and absent egregious misconduct cannot be removed.<br /></b></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b>The problem started when Congress began delegating the specifics of legislation to the appropriate Executive Agency. In other words, Congress may pass a law on automotive emissions but authorize the EPA to promulgate the regulations necessary to implement the law. They are allowed to do so, partially because the Congress had insufficient staff and, likely, no expert qualified to do itt was the wrong solution.</b></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b>Today, the Executive Branch has about two million civilian employees and an unknown number of people operating on its behalf on a contract basis or through a corporate contractor. They both formulate and enforce regulations. There are many proper duties for the agencies of the Executive Branch, however, they should be executive and formulating regulations is a legislative power. They should not be making laws. Rather than allowing the current Congressional practice of writing laws and delegating the details to departments in the Executive branch, the personnel should be transferred to the proper committee and committee members where the specifics of the law will be fleshed out.<br /><br />We really have no idea what percent of the two million executive branch bureaucrats are engaged in setting policies and regulations and how many are legitimately executing and enforcing those policies and regulations. If we assume that 25% are doing the former, that is 500K bureaucrats. </b></span></span><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b>That is likely an underestimation, but for the sake of conservatism, we will use it. These bureaucrats should </b></span></span>be transferred to the 44 committees of the Senate and House. There, instead of having lifelong career security, many and perhaps most, will have a job at the pleasure of a Representative or Senator and should the member of Congress be defeated or retire, they will be terminated.</b></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b>While some of the transferred bureaucrats would work for the majority and minority members of the committee and would be administered by the chairman and ranking member of the committee. However, most would report to a specific committee member and would provide the expertise and time required to create and further complete the bills. Therefore, the law, if passed, would not need the Executive to promulgate more detailed rules. <br /><br />For example, a given House member who sits on three committees may have 750 additional staff members, compared to the current staffing of about 21. Committee staffers might increase from the current level of 6,000 to 100,000. This quite likely would be more than enough and, in fact, totally staffing might be reduced, perhaps substantially. </b></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b>One of the critical control tricks currently being exercised by the Federal government is the elaboration of laws administratively where political processes don't apply. In other words, Congress can pass a vague law that will garner sufficient support and then, when fleshed out by the Executive Branch, turns into something that could never get past a <a href="https://www.senate.gov/committees/committees_faq.htm" target="_blank">Conference Committee</a>. In other words, this simple proposed reorganization that brings the issuance of regulations under the legislative branch would almost certainly result in much less intrusive laws.<br /></b></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b>Because laws would be much less intrusive, there would be fewer bureaucrats needed to enforce the laws, likely shrinking the assumed legion of 1.5 million bureaucrats assigned to enforcement. <br /><br />My argument would be that in EUNA, the sense many people have that their lives are being run out of D.C. would slowly dissipate.<br /></b></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b>Additionally, the President should use Executive Orders in the manner for which they are intended. They should provide for the efficient operation of the Executive Branch. They should not be used to promulgate policies that would not pass muster in Congress. Essentially, all recent Presidents have violated this principle; they have been legislating from the Executive Branch, both through the Administrative State and themselves. This is a gross violation of separation of powers.</b></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b>The rules throughout Europe, India, Brazil, Japan and South Korea differ, but nearly all of them are suffering the same growth in Administrative States. In an objective sense, this means that most of the liberal democracies are becoming less democratic and less liberal. This is happening, in essence, because people are being told, 'Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain'. It is well past the time that we should.<br /></b></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><u><span style="font-size: large;">Please Register and Share</span></u></span></b></span></span></p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b>The growth in readers is very gratifying. However, we are still small and we need to grow.</b></span></span><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b> If you support intellectual sophistication, just a simple share can change the dynamic in a way that will improve our future. If either the Left or Right tries to sell partisan misinformation and the 660,000 readers, which is what we will have if we keep growing at 17% per week, receive a convincing and well supported refutation, both the Right and the Left will have their narratives disrupted. That can vastly improve the public discourse and by extension improve the state of EUNA. And all it takes is your regular sharing of the newsletters that you receive.<br /></b></span></span><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b><br /></b></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b><br /></b></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b><br /></b></span></span></p><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width: 320px;"><colgroup><col span="5" width="64"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr height="20">
<td align="right" height="20" style="height: 15pt; width: 48pt;" width="64"> </td><td align="right" height="20" style="height: 15pt; width: 48pt;" width="64"> </td><td align="right" height="20" style="height: 15pt; width: 48pt;" width="64"><br /></td><td align="right" height="20" style="height: 15pt; width: 48pt;" width="64"><br /></td><td align="right" height="20" style="height: 15pt; width: 48pt;" width="64"><br /></td><td align="right" style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><br /></td><td align="right" style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><br /></td><td align="right" style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><br /></td><td align="right" style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><br /></td></tr></tbody></table><p><br /></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"></span></span></b></p>Michael's Resumehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15472400070847709603noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-239620140160681751.post-84500690183135602202022-06-26T06:12:00.000-04:002022-06-26T06:12:53.324-04:00Newsletter 8: Fed's Pickle, Blackbox Manufacturing, Right Ascending<p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">My long term goal is to reach a sufficient number of thought leaders so that the Rightish Silo and Leftish Silo narratives are disrupted. As you will likely discern over time, neither is worthy of serious consideration. Certainly, some of these unsupportable narratives involve technology, but at its core it relies upon people's misunderstanding of Economics, Political Philosophy, Sociology, etc. So, I will regularly return to explaining the principles and mechanics of these subjects.<br /><br />For those who have not read, <a href="https://michaelwferguson.substack.com/p/intellectual-sophistication" target="_blank">'Intellectual Sophistication'</a> I hope you put it on your reading list. If you have not yet read it, I want to clarify that I am not a high IQ guy. Intelligence is necessary, but not sufficient, when it comes to producing high quality intellectual product. The core of intellectual sophistication is comprised of erudition, objectivity and discipline. If one is less than impressive in one's intellectual sophistication it is likely the result of a deficiency in a couple of components, of which one may not be intelligence. As I have pointed out several times, high IQ societies tend to attract high IQ, low intellectual sophistication people, while Academia tends to attract people educated beyond their intelligence. <br /></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><u>The Pickle the Fed (and Euro central bank) Are In</u></span></span></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">As I have said over and over; if legislatures spend more than the Real GDP+the Central Bank's target inflation rate, the Central Bank is put in a no win situation. It has a choice of either 'printing money' and thus exceeding the inflation rate or allowing interest rates to rise and likely instigating a recession. In 2021, that magic number was about 800 billion USD in the U.S. and about the same in the Eurozone. The actual U.S. Federal Deficit was 2.8 trillion USD. If the Central Bank monetizes the excess, inflation explodes. The Fed and the Eurozone Central Bank, both in fact, monetized the deficit and, as a consequence, inflation has been exploding. The 'pickle' is that if the Fed doesn't buy Treasuries, then the excess 2.0 trillion USD will flow through to auction and interest rates will skyrocket.<br /></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">There are a few dynamics that complexifies this. First, there is a proper relationship between inflation and interest rates on Treasuries, especially the 10 year bond. The reason is because it historically has been the first choice among several lesser options to park one's unutilized financial resources. It has been marginally more attractive than gold because 1) gold carries no official return and 2) gains, unlike for Treasuries, are not exempt from taxation. Of course, other governments issue similar debt instruments. If the interest rate on 10 year Treasuries is too far below the inflation rate, people find other options, often off shore. </span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">As a store of value, the sensible rule of thumb should be that the 10 year Treasury interest rate should exactly reimburse the holder for loss of purchasing power through inflation of USD. Currently, inflation is at 8.6%, however, 10 year Treasuries are currently yielding 3.1%. </span></span></b><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"> However, as the Fed sells its inventory of Treasuries, M2 will fall and so will inflation. </span></span></b> It is not necessarily the case where the two will meet in the middle. However, if it does, that point will be around 5.9%. That interest rate will substantially increase the cost of financed assets, such as houses and cars, which, in turn, will likely result in a recession.<br /><br />Since the Eurozone is in the same situation, the coming recession will be global. Of course, 5.9% inflation and interest rates are not optimal. Fortunately, the Fed still has a whole lot of Treasuries to sell and by not buying new ones, money supply will likely fall and with it, inflation. It is generally taken that an inflation rate of 2% is optimal. There are several reasons for that. First, <a href="https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/02/why-is-deflation-bad/" target="_blank">deflation is harmful</a> and, because monetary policy is not completely accurate, a little inflation as a safety margin is wise. Second, while people don't like inflation, it is actually economically stimulative. Here is a simple example. Suppose you buy a house for 200K USD and you have P&I of $1,200 per month. Next year, there is 5% inflation and so, your income of $3,600 increases by 5% to $3,780. Your P&I did not increase by 5%, so, assuming that everything else stayed at 5%, you have an additional $1,200X5%=$60 per month of purchasing power. So, you spend it and that stimulates the economy by increasing demand.<br /><br />So, if Congress limits the deficit to around $800 billion, inflationary pressure will subside and return to 2% relatively quickly. However, that can only happen after the current extra $2 trillion of spending can be wrung out of the system and that can't happen without a bout of increasing inflation and interest rates and a recession. By the way, the U.S. was in a very similar situation at the end of the 1970s and that was precisely how it was solved. It was painful, but there seems to be no alternative.</span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Despite all the rhetoric on both sides and the hostility toward the Fed, the fact is that the FOMC is moving, albeit a bit late, in a prudent and proper way. However, that does not defuse the pickle and a recession can only be moderated, not avoided.<br /><br /><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><u><span style="font-size: large;">Blackbox Manufacturing is Coming</span></u></span></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Blackbox Manufacturing is a term that I coined in a 1970 term paper. In it, I imagined that robotic trucks would bring raw materials to a factory where robotic forklifts would unload it and put it on pallet racking. When the time came, a robotic forklift would bring it to the assembly line where robots would assemble the parts into finished goods. Robotic forklifts would bring the finished goods to a picking line where other robots would assemble orders entered by computers. Robotic forklifts would bring the completed orders to the shipping dock where they would be loaded onto robotic trucks and be taken to their final destination. I predicted that it would be feasible in about 50 years. That was 52 years ago, my prediction was close.<br /></span></span></span></span></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Obviously, I called it a black box because raw materials go in and finished goods go out and there is no human intervention in between. Now that it is an eventuality generally accepted, it is being called, 'Lights Off Manufacturing'. This is critical to understanding the near future, because this is not science fiction; it is feasible today. Foxconn attempted to fully automate the assembly of Apple products. They were unsuccessful, but they were close and it was far more challenging that, say, manufacturing shampoo. Such less demanding automation <a href="https://www.aboutmechanics.com/what-is-automated-manufacturing.htm" target="_blank">are being implemented</a> and many are predicting their almost <a href="https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/operations/our-insights/automation-robotics-and-the-factory-of-the-future" target="_blank">universal use in the near future</a>. </span></span></span></span></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: medium;">During the Agricultural Age, farming was the most common job and it occupied over half the population. Today, it employs only about 2% of the population. At that time, rather than farming, people worked in factories making products. Now, with black box manufacturing, the number of people engaged in manufacturing will also likely fall to around 2%. This has actually already started with only about 10% of the workers engaged in manufacturing today. Already, most people are engaged in the processing of information or providing services. In the past, the primary information jobs have been dubbed 'pink collar' and services have been dominated by low wage hospitality jobs. Because of this, non-systems thinkers, which sadly comprises most of the MSM, have predicted the death of the middle class. They imagine an economy that is dominated by minimum wage service workers.</span></span></span></span></span></span></b></p><p style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></span></span></span></span></span></b><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></span></span></span></span></span></b></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRsizcXdi-jAK0BtsFqsAZ3ri_cuaMVAvdmojFUDpY7FZ7N37JfV7ha86PBK5xeXhK4DfYg9fJVspuab_D2k2AwdgcUdV9cNEE3MOD-HQLRv7nRkEAfH8ec1IFg3J-nv2vHnoHxGlf_3NtmJfkbhEM355iTrSHsNaM--lNG1PekL5btO0xnUbE16Ee/s843/Shrinking%20Middle%20Class.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="593" data-original-width="843" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRsizcXdi-jAK0BtsFqsAZ3ri_cuaMVAvdmojFUDpY7FZ7N37JfV7ha86PBK5xeXhK4DfYg9fJVspuab_D2k2AwdgcUdV9cNEE3MOD-HQLRv7nRkEAfH8ec1IFg3J-nv2vHnoHxGlf_3NtmJfkbhEM355iTrSHsNaM--lNG1PekL5btO0xnUbE16Ee/s320/Shrinking%20Middle%20Class.jpg" width="320" /></a></span></span></span></span></span></span></b></div><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Because of this, in my group, Polymathica, I use this banner. Its message is that while the middle class is in fact disappearing, the majority of those leaving are rising to the upper class, not falling to the lower class. It is also worth noting that the fastest growing group are households with incomes in excess of 200,000 2020USD. These are the Information Age independent workers that I talk about, one might say incessantly, when I discuss the proper careers for Polymathicans.</span></span></span></span></span></span></b><p></p><p style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: medium;">There is growing discussion of UBI (universal basic income) and the justification is often the misplaced belief that automation will result in 50% or higher unemployment rate and the massive replacement of humans by machines over the next few decades. While it is true that automation is about to explode, the belief that it will lead to enormous unemployment is called 'The Luddite Fallacy' referring to the belief, in the early 1800s, that power looms would result in massive unemployment. Despite 200 years of disproof of this concern, the Internet is full of essays proclaiming that 'this time is different'. It isn't. <br /><br />Consider an economy that has a GDP of one trillion dollars and a worker population of ten million. That means that the average worker has an annual added value of one hundred thousand dollars. Now suppose that through automation, the average worker has an added value of two hundred thousand dollars. It could be that GDP would remain at one trillion dollars, but the number of workers will fall to five million. The unemployment rate is now 50%. That is not what happens. Rather, the number of workers falls, but then rises again to one hundred thousand. However, GDP is now two trillion dollars. So, the standard of living doubles.<br /><br /></span></span></span></span></span></span></b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b>As we saw in the above graph, the extra one trillion dollars is not
spread equally. It mostly goes to decreasing the number of poor people
and increasing the income and number of households at the very highest
level. This is why, in the past 70 years, GDP per capita has increased
substantially, but the median household income has increased only
slightly. The 50%'ile person is not the same person as 70 years ago, but their value added is about the same.</b></span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b>An important thing to understand is that the middle class will continue to disappear. We are headed toward a bimodal, rather than trimodal, economy, with service workers at the bottom and owners, innovators, and deciders at the upper end. The lower class, which, oddly, will include Physicians, Architects, Attorneys, but also wait staff, gardeners, beauticians, etc., will comprise about 80% of the labor force while the upper class will comprise the other 20%. The result is much better than it might initially appear.<br /><br />The High Industrial Age began around 1875 and continued to about 1995. That is the beginning of the Information Age. In 1875, according to <a href="https://www.measuringworth.com/" target="_blank">Measuring Worth</a>, the average GDP/capita was 3,506 2012USD. By 1995, the average GDP/capita has increased to 39,900 2012 USD. So, during that 120 years, standards of living seem to have increased 11.38X. Standards of living will increase by a similar amount during the Information Age, but it will take, perhaps, half that long. So, we would project that GDP/capita will increase to around 450,000 2012USD or about 863,000 2021USD. If we use Pareto, we will conclude that the upper class will have an income of around 3,500,000 2021USD and the lower class will have an income of around 215,000. This assumes, unrealistically, that no government efforts would be employed to decrease income disparity.<br /><br />This process, actually, has already started. Recently, the 'great resignation' has been reported in the news. Obviously, some of these resigners simply had stimulus money in their pockets and decided to spend it on a little vacation and a search for another job. However, many are likely responding to the spate of advertisements touting the opportunities to work independently. They got a taste of it during the COVID-19 lock downs, decided they liked it and are pursuing the 'opportunities' being advertised.<br /><br />How the economy of the Information Age will differ from the Industrial Age is extremely complex. Consequently, I am working on a book entitled, 'The Death of Capitalism: Information Age Economics'. By this, I do not mean a rise of Socialism. Rather, I mean that imagination, connectivity, creativity, and quality judgment will replace Capital as the 'Wealth of Nations'. Peter Diamandis argues for a coming 'Age of Abundance' and, while likely misguided in many of its details, is spot on with regard to the changes that automation will bring to society.<br /><br /></b></span></span><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></span></span></span></span></span></b></p><p><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><b><u><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">EUNA Is Moving Right</span></span></u></b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b>I
know that it sounds like tin-foil conspiracy theory, but there is, in
fact, a well developed, self identified power structure that spans all
of the EU and North America. Many on the Right call it 'The Party of
Davos' and in the U.S. is often referred to as 'The UniParty'. The term
'Party of Davos' refers to the World Economic Forum, an organization
supported primarily by 1,000 multinational corporations. It has 3,000
members who are mostly large investors, business leaders, political
leaders, economists, celebrities and journalists. While hardly the only
mechanism for coordination and cooperation of the elites across the
world, it is likely the most visible. It describes its mission as </b></span></span><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b>"improving the state of the world by engaging business, political,
academic, and other leaders of society to shape global, regional, and
industry agendas".<br /><br />There is also the Bilderberg Meeting and the
Trilateral Commission, both of which have been frequently mentioned in
conspiracy theories. Again, they rather blatantly state their purpose
is to coordinate the efforts of elites. However, because of its size,
corporate funding and the inflammatory headlines that have described
past meetings, most notably the 2020 'Great Reset', WEF has come to the
forefront and become the focus of a growing, global populist,
nationalist movement. Given a constituency of billionaires and national
leaders, it is difficult to refute the charge that its aims are nothing
less than a global plutocracy.<br /><br />While integral to the current
socio-political dynamic of much of EUNA, Davos is only a part of the
whole. There is, simultaneously, a renaissance of conservative values
among the young. Also, since voters become about <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/03/do-we-become-more-conservative-with-age-young-old-politics" target="_blank">.38% more conservative per year</a>, as populations age, they can become dominated by conservative
voters. A third phenomenon is that people tend to vote like their
parents and conservatives have more children than liberals. For these
reasons, Liberals, who have controlled the politics of most of EUNA
since WWII, are losing control of the political dialogue.</b></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b>'The
Great Replacement' theory says that Liberals are intentionally importing
refugee masses with the intent to get them the right to vote so that,
presumably, they will give Liberals a more or less permanent majority.
Is this true? It is not easily proved or disproved. </b></span></span><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b>However, there is
little doubt that both the U.S. and Europe are being flooded with
immigrants. In both Eastern Europe and Southern U.S. this flood of
immigrants is creating a backlash. So, whether the flood of immigrants
was an intentional effort to dilute 'white voters' or not, it is
creating a conservative, nationalist, populist movement. <br /></b></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b>I will grant that those who are in favor of large refugee populations entering EUNA do so for ideological reasons. In other words, they may be properly moved by the political and economic privations of Syrians when they allow them to move to Europe or for Venezuelans when they allow them to move to U.S. However, it does mean that the expatriated Middle East and Latin America expatriated residents are increasing the percentage of the population without a strong Enlightenment heritage. However, it is not necessarily the case that, if they gain voting rights, either officially or surreptitiously, that they will support the Liberal side. There is no doubt that the Liberal side thinks so, but the data is starting to question that premise.<br /><br />There is, however, a danger that the Left may, ultimately, be hoisted by their own petard. In both cases, whether the Muslim refugees in Europe or the Latin refugees in the U.S., they may be of a more Socialist world view, they are culturally very conservative. While, in the U.S., the Democrats thought that they could turn Texas blue because of the increasing Hispanic population. However, the Hispanics are now voting culture and are moving to the Republicans.</b></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b>Lastly, in the American inner cities, a growing number of residents are coming to realize that Leftish policies are mostly to blame for the squalid conditions within which they live. As all Hispanics are moving Right, so are black males. <br /><br />Watershed moments just took place in both France and the U.S. While Macron won re-electiion over Marine Le Pen by a comfortable margin, though much less than in prior elections. However, the Liberals lost control of the French legislature to the more Conservative parties. In the U.S., there have been several interim elections that went the Republican way. However, Hispanic Republican candidate, Mayra Flores, beat the Hispanic Democrat candidate, Dan Sanchez by nearly 8%. What makes this such a significant harbinger is that Biden won the District by nearly 15%. It suggests, especially in Districts and States with large Latin population, that no previous Democrat win makes the seat safe.<br /><br />We should not ignore the traditionally Christian Conservative nations of Eastern Europe. They are not necessarily becoming Conservative, but they appear to becoming more intransigent to more Liberal policies of the EU. The focus has been on Hungary where long term President Viktor Orban has been <a href="https://warsawinstitute.org/problematic-relations-hungary-european-union/" target="_blank">increasingly at odds with Brussels</a>. While the EU has emphasized what they consider to be human rights violations, the Hungarians perceive the conflict to be more over their Christian Nationalist values, specifically over anti LGBTQI+ and forced acceptance of Middle Eastern refugees.<br /><br />However, the EU is having a Conservative backlash over all of Eastern Europe. </b></span></span><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b><span class="ILfuVd" lang="en"><span class="hgKElc">Abortion in Poland is <b>legal only in cases when the pregnancy is a result of a criminal act or when the woman's life or health is at risk</b>. This stands in stark contrast to the general abortion rights. Also, about 1/3 of Poland, in the Southeast, is an LGBT-free zone. Due to this, the EU is withholding some funding. Also, Poland was the major safe-haven for Ukrainians, it pushed back on accepting refugees from the Middle East, suggesting, if not nationalist sentiments, a greater Slavic solidarity. Combined with a much more Christian sensibility, there is, if not a move Right, a more strident expression of a Conservative set of values.<br /><br />We see that the interaction of many factors are all causing a cultural and political sea change over most of EUNA. That does not mean that there will be an eradication of the Left. Rather, we will see a more balanced and, hopefully, tolerant distribution of empowered subcultures.<br /><br /><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><span style="font-size: large;"><u>Recent Supreme Court Decisions</u></span></span></span></span></b></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b><span class="ILfuVd" lang="en"><span class="hgKElc"><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: black;">Two major Supreme Court decisions on gun rights and abortion were released in the last few days. It is a lot of reading and I have not yet assimilated all of the opinions, much less thought critically about it. However, on an initial skim, I will likely take umbrage to both majority and minority opinions on both decisions.<br /><br />As I end every newsletter, please register, if you have not and share either way. We are growing at a gratifying rate and initial analysis indicates that the growth is exponential rather than linear. Consequently, within a year we can possibly reach the point where we can exert meaningful influence on the public discourse.</span></span><u></u></span></span><br /><br /><br /></span></span></b></span></span></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"></span></span></b></p>Michael's Resumehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15472400070847709603noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-239620140160681751.post-71736893259079596882022-06-19T09:01:00.001-04:002022-06-19T09:01:15.490-04:00Newletter 7: Modifying the Westphalian Model<p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">This week I am dedicating the whole newsletter to one of the biggest problems in Western civilization that nobody talks about. </span></span></b><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">That is, specifica</span></span></b><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">lly, the inability of the Westphalian model to accommodate the current rapid increase in cultural fragmentation and the political fallout that is resulting from it. Despite the Rightish and Leftish coverage, it is the underlying problem in Ukraine right now. However, it is also a problem in other places and it is one that will become worse as the forces of social change accelerate over the next few decades.<br /><br />At its core, the problem is that the Westphalian model results in an extremely illiberal stance within the community of nations with regard to secession. That would not be a problem if modern society was culturally homogenous. However, even within a liberal, democratic ideological world view, there is a whole lot of room for disagreement. Additionally, ethnic, national and/or group identity, within EUNA, is potentially very diverse. The development of the Internet, through print and video news and entertainment content, is allowing these groups to find each other and reinforce their sense of identity. Also, the formation of cultural or ethnic identity is not geographically defined. There have been several diasporas that now can remain cohesive rather than being assimilated into their local community. </span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">I often speak about the Right Silo and the Left Silo. Very little information or ideas move from one Silo to the other. Consequently, they each are mechanisms that are reinforcing and magnifying several, clustered cultural identities. The Left Silo is comprised of Socialists, Marxist/Feminists, Greens, (for now) Traditional Christian Democrats, etc. The Right Silo is comprised of Christian Conservatives, Opportunity Conservatives, Libertarians, etc. Even this is an oversimplification. However, there are also groups, including Polymathica, that cannot comfortably fit into either of these two dominant Silos. Consequently, over time, more Silos will form in order to accommodate them.</span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Regional and ethnic identities are compounding the problem, especially in Europe. However, in North America, the West Coast and the South are developing Regional identities with very different, probably incompatible, ideological viewpoints. They still are part of the, Enlightenment, European culture, but likely too different to comfortably share a common body of laws, policies and programs.</span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">By way of background, between 1642 and 1648 much of Europe undertook six years of negotiations that resulted in major treaties, referred to as the <a href="https://digitalcommons.lasalle.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1146&context=the_histories" target="_blank">Peace of Westphalia</a>. It instituted several changes in how the European community of nations interacted with one another. The part that, over time, revolutionized the global community of nations, and changed the future, was the introduction of the concept of sovereignty. Essentially, it was the birth of the concept of territorial integrity and the modern nation state.</span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">The Peace of Westphalia took place prior to the emergence of the Political Philosophy of the Enlightenment. Hobbes is generally credited with its beginning when he wrote Leviathan in 1651. However, it was more than a century later that the primary principles were fully formulated by Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Smith, Kant, et alia. Consequently, the drafting of the Peace of Westphalia was not fully informed by the Enlightenment and it is not fully compatible with it.</span></span></b></p><p><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>During and immediately after the Enlightenment, nearly all nation states in Europe became liberal democracies. Many retained their Monarchies but in a ceremonial role. This means that there is a pronouncement in some form that the individual enjoys liberty, despite the sovereignty of the nation state. The 1789 <a href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/rightsof.asp" target="_blank">"</a></b></span></span><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><a href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/rightsof.asp" target="_blank">Declaration of the Rights of Man"</a>, </span></span><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">approved by the National Assembly of France carefully delineated the Rights that accrue to the citizens of a liberal democracy based upon these Enlightenment principles. </span></span><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"> A critical point of the document was, "4. Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one
else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits
except those which assure to the other members of the society the
enjoyment of the same rights." This presaged the concepts of Kant's 1797 Categorical Imperative, which in some ways, completed the Political Philosophy portion of the Enlightenment.<br /><br /></span></span></b><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">On the other hand, the previous item, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">"3. </span></span><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"> The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the
nation. <span style="color: #cc0000;"><i>No body nor individual may exercise any authority which does
not proceed directly from the nation</i></span>." precludes sovereignty claimed and exercised by aggregations of citizens unless they constitute a majority within the whole nation state. It is unlikely that the framers intended it to be interpreted in an illiberal way, but that is precisely what happened in practice.</span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">The ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America in 1791, through its Bill of Rights, enumerated many of the same principles codified by the French "Declaration of the Rights of Man". The Bill of Rights confers to States a degree of Sovereignty. However, it is subordinate to the Sovereignty of the Federal government. The U.S. has a benefit in that a number of States did secede and, when they did so, <a href="https://www.historyonthenet.com/confederate-states-america-2" target="_blank">made several arguments</a> that doing so was legal and, even, just. However, these arguments did not persuade the Federal government and a war of reintegration ensued. For many, this firmly established the principle that communities within a nation state are irrevocably subject to the ultimate sovereignty of the nation. </span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Again, this could be construed as oppression, as Thomas Jefferson asserted, when he penned in the Declaration of Independence, </span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from
the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government
becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to
alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its
foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as
to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."</span></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Locke, especially, argued that the rights of the individual are natural and, as such irrevocable One of those rights, expressly enumerated, was liberty. Yet, the claim that the nation state possesses ultimate dominion over its citizens clearly violates the natural right of liberty. This contradiction remains unresolved and, even today, as demonstrated in Yugoslavia, Crimea, Donbas, South Ossetia, Transnistria, North Cyprus, Catalonia, etc. the declared desire on the part of a community to sever ties with the nation state within which it finds itself nearly always, as it did with the North American colonies, leads to violence. </b></span></span></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Several Enlightenment Philosophers, most notably Jean Jacques Rousseau, argued that the legitimacy of the nation state was based upon a social contract with its citizens. While attractive as a concept, the Social Contract concept has several very serious flaws. In nearly all cases, current residents did not agree to the Social Contract, but rather were simply born into it. Generally, they are allowed to leave if they did not agree with the terms of the Social Contract (It is generally considered illiberal when countries establish 'exit visas'), however, the rights of citizenship are considered to be non-severable and are forfeited with expatriation. <br /><br />Additionally, current boundaries of nation states are a legacy to all current citizens. Long
ago in various events, groups of people met and drew perimeters around
large parcels of land and called them countries. With the Peace of
Westphalia, the perimeters were memorialized and thereafter nation
states became the center of focus of geopolitical interactions. </b></span></span></span></span></b><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>There is no mechanism by which they can be changed. </b></span></span></span></span></b>It is
definitely not the case that the territorial integrity of nations were never again
challenged. Wars still happened and when they ended, often the borders
of nations changed. However, the community of nations, in aggregate,
generally condemned these wars of conquest.</b></span></span></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b> </b></span></span><br />Today, almost no nation state grants the right of portions of their population to withdraw and to claim sovereignty for themselves</span></span></b><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">. This is despite the current borders often being arbitrary and even nonsensical. For example, after attempting secession in 2017, Catalonia found its action declared illegal by Spain's Constitutional Court and an arrest warrant for sedition was declared against the former Catalonian President. This was done on the basis of the very historically recent 1978 Spanish Constitution. Catalonia's identity is quite ancient.<br /><br />Their history began its formal regional recognition as part of the Roman Empire after a period when it was occupied by an indigenous population with a few Greek colonies. When Rome fell, it had a brief period of indeterminate status and then, in 718, became part of the </span></span></b><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umayyad_dynasty" title="Umayyad dynasty">Umayyad dynasty</a>. Around 800 A.D. it fell under Frankish rule. In 1137, much of it became part of Aragon, with the remainder becoming the Principality of Catalonia. In 1469, through marriage, Castille and Aragon partially merged under the marriage of Ferdinand II (of Aragon) and Isabella I (of Castille). However, it was not until 1714 under Philip V of Bourbon that Spain came under common rule, which included the modern Catalonia. This, then, becomes the point in time when Catalonia became part of Spain, in a meaningful way. Even then, however, with the Napoleonic wars, the continuity of Catalonia as part of Spain was interrupted.<br /><br />The current nation of Spain was established in 1978 and it is under that Constitution that Spain's Constitutional Court declared the the 2017 referendum for Catalonian independence illegal. The referendum was held anyway and the independence side won. The Spanish central government declared the referendum invalid and arrested many of the organizers, while others fled the country. The Spanish Senate called for direct rule of Catalonia and a new election was held in which, again, pro-independence parties took control of the legislature. However, in 2019, finally, calmer heads prevailed and a 'table of negotiations' was instituted. However, the Federal government, before it started announced that it would not consider Catalonian independence. So, with a pro-independence Catalonian Legislature and an obdurate central government, this disagreement is clearly not over.</span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">This situation where the majority of Spain is against Catalonian independence, while the small majority of Catalonia is in favor, is being repeated over Europe. Clearly, this is a tyranny of the majority. We see it in Ukraine, where the majority of Ukrainians were against Crimean independence, but the vast majority of Crimeans were in favor. Transnistria is in favor of independence, but the majority of Moldovans are against it. The northern portion of Cyprus is Turkish and wants independence, while the majority of Cypriots are against it.<br /><br />In these and many other cases, the Westphalian model is counterproductive and, many times, promotes illiberal treatment of minority groups of citizens. The Kurds, comprising minority populations in Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran have never had a homeland and the currrent interpretation of the Westphalian model, never will. In the worst cases, as in the current Ukrainian situation, substantial military conflicts arise. Even in the best of situations, 'break away' regions, such as Kosovo are caught in a state of limbo. Serbia considers it to be part of Serbia, while Kosovo, primarily ethnic Abanians, considers itself to be independent. They have their own money, their own license plates, their own border control, but they are not recognized by about half of the UN members and are not a UN member, themselves. Northern Cyprus is in a worse situation with de facto independence, but recognized only by Turkey. Turkey maintains a substantial military presence there to dissuade Cyprus and/or NATO of engaging in a military intervention.</span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">The above mentioned cases are examples where there is little controversy over whether the majority of the people within the region favor independence. However, a very substantial minority (>40%) do. Such has been the situation in Quebec, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Chechnya, Abkhazia, Donbas (perhaps), to name a few. While imposing laws, programs and policies that the regional majority accept but a minority profoundly disagrees with is also illiberal. Resolution is even more problematic.</span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">I am writing a book entitled, 'A New Enlightenment: Political Philosophy in the Information Age'. In it I propose a new principle of liberalism, specifically, 'No person should be required to live under a body of laws, programs and policies that (s)he considers to be fundamentally unjust'. This does not mean that every difference of opinion should invoke this principle. There is plenty of room for political resolutions. However, this does not apply to significant differences in principles.<br /><br />Politics is the art of compromise. It is wrong to compromise one's principles. Therefore, political resolutions are not proper when differences are matters of principle. Resolutions are also not likely to be found because the opposing sides won't compromise. This divergence of values is central to the <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/" target="_blank">polarization in the U.S.</a> It will be central to the coming 'divorce'. Nor, I argue, should they. Enforcing 'territorial integrity' over a minority because the minority agree with it is fundamentally counter to the principles of liberalism.<br /><br />Originally, Crimea was populated by Scythians but Persia rendered the peninsula more or less uninhabitable. Over time, other populations moved in. By 600 A.D., Crimea was ethnically a mixture of Greeks, Bulgars, </span></span></b><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Kypchaks and Goths. However, around 900 A.D. Russians took it from the Byzantine Empire. They held it until around 1200 A.D. when briefly Venice took it over, but lost it 30 years later to the Mongol invasion. In 1475, it was taken over by the Ottoman Empire. They held it until 1783 when Russia took it back. While Russia and, later, the Soviet Union had difficulty holding it until after WWII.</span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"></span></span></b></p><p><br /><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">During
the 2014 conflict in Crimea, the news talked about what the U.S.
wanted, what the national government of Ukraine wanted, what Russia,
Germany and France wanted. I kept asking, 'What to the Crimeans want?
Isn't that most important?' What I learned was that few people could
think outside of the Westphalian model. Those stuck in it interpreted
Russia as invading Ukraine. However, those who could transcend the
Westphalian model might conclude that, rather than an invasion, Russia
was defending the Crimea's right to self-determination. One might
argue, as I would, that if Ukraine is allowed to defend its right to
self determination, the same right should be granted to Crimea and now
Donbas, as well.</span></span></b></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"> </span></span></b><br />Today, all the ethnic populations that comprise Crimea's history have disappeared through interbreeding save for the Tatars. The Tatars came to Crimea through the Mongol invasion. They comprise about 12% of the population of Crimea. While Ukrainian is more of a national identity than an ethnic one, but it comprises about 15% of Crimea. That is somewhat misleading since Pew Research found that about <a href="https://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/05/12/pew-poll-crimeans-happy-with-annexation-by-russia-believe-referendum-was-free-and-fair/" target="_blank">88% of Crimeans </a>favor the joining of the Russian Federation. However, that means that 12%, presumably mostly Tatars, who do not. </span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">If there is an ethical justification for Crimea to withdraw from Ukraine, then that same logic will apply to any decision of the Tatars to leave the Crimean government. We don't know that there is any appetite for such a secession. However, that is not important with regard to their right to do so. The problem arises when there is no clear geographic definition of the population.<br /><br />Northern Ireland is an example of a minority population within a geographically defined region that did not want to belong to a larger nation state but did not define a specific geographic location within Northern Ireland. It is a good example of an intermediate situation. A minority of Northern Irish were Catholic and wanted Northern Ireland to reunite with Ireland. Most Northern Irish did not and preferred to remain in the U.K. They really had just two reasonable options. One, they could individually move to Ireland and, in fact, that has slowly been happening. Two, they could all move to the most Catholic portion of Northern Ireland and when they become the majority in that area, declare independence for that region and/or apply for membership in Ireland.<br /><br />In most of Europe, minorities that contain separatist movements typically already have their own region or province. This is certainly true in the Basque region of Spain and France, Scotland, Alsace in France, Bavaria in Germany, etc. It means that if the separatist movement reaches a critical mass, the independence demands will be fairly well defined. However, in every case, they comprise a very small minority of the nation state's population. <br /><br />While most of the separatist movements in North America are not ethnic or regional, that is beginning to change. That is because, as the majority in a given State or Province uses the 'tyranny of the majority' to create the laws, programs and policies that they prefer, the minority leaves. This is often just concentrating pre-existing subcultural differences. In other words, California, for example, has been progressive and secular for quite awhile. On the other hand, Florida has been conservative and Christian. What is happening is that conservative and religious Californians are moving to Florida and while there is not yet evidence for it, presumably, eventually, as this process continues, progressive, secular Floridians will move to California.<br /><br />At some point, one can easily imagine that California, Oregon and Washington may not want to share a country with Texas, Tennessee, Florida, etc. However, will there be justification for the withdrawal from the Union? We know that in 1860, there was not. A war was fought. However, it is now over 160 years later. Laws, interpretations of laws and public opinions have changed. Say that Florida seceded from the U.S. The majority of Americans would likely be against it. However, would they be willing to see columns of tanks roll into Tallahassee, arresting local officials and bombing pockets of resistance? Most likely the answer is no and a situation that now prevails in Transnistria, Abkhasia, Kosovo, Northern Cyprus, etc. would result. In other words, Florida would behave as if it was independent, the Federal government would not recognize it, but would only engage in non-violent resistance.<br /><br />I am currently in-process on a book, 'The Rise of the Microstate: The geopolitics of the Information Age' in which I will explore the mechanisms by which nation states will end and subculturally defined microstates will emerge. Here, however, we are focusing on whether nation states are on sound philosophical ground when they assert, as they almost always do, that secession is illegal. The current interpretation of the Westphalian model, they invariably say that it is illegal. Other countries will claim that it is an internal affair and other nations should not recognize breakaway regions until and unless the nation state involved does so. <br /></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Enlightenment principles support the concept of individual liberty. The issue of liberty aggregated while often addressed in scholarly communities has generally concluded that secession is a natural extension of the individual right to liberty and self-determination. However, among legal communities, whether addressing international law or the legal status within a specific nation state the right to secession <a href="https://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=annlsurvey" target="_blank">has not regularly seen as justified</a> and when it is seen as justified, only so in extreme situations. This is primarily the result of the canonization within the United Nations and other transnational organization of the Westphalian system. Being of a more philosophical rather than legal perspective, I am more convinced by the former than the latter. However, the issue is quickly becoming a more practical one than either a philosophical or legal one.<br /><br />We currently have a number of 'breakaway' regions that are functioning as de facto nations. We also have several where secession was declared but where national governments recaptured control. Other regions, such as Northern Ireland have become peaceful but are likely to have continuing problems due to changes in demographics. Lastly, the fragmenting and polarizing processes of the Internet will likely see increasing calls for independence. Simply put, if each event results in a war, the 21st Century will become quite bloody. The Westphalian model simply must be modified so that secession and the emergence of microstates is an orderly and peaceful one. Right now, the war in Ukraine is being misapprehended as a war between Westphalian nation states when it is, in reality, about the right to secede. It is the present one, but it is hardly the last one.<br /><br /><br /></span></span></b></p>Michael's Resumehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15472400070847709603noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-239620140160681751.post-92170617767959230092022-06-19T03:11:00.000-04:002022-06-19T03:11:09.713-04:00Newsletter 6: Neflix Declines, Jan 6 Bottom Line & Profits/Inflation<p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b>In creating my Locals.com account and my Substack site, I do have long term objectives. First, I wish to present, through my newsletter, white papers, books and discussion, an objectively supportable world view. Second, by virtue of our objectively supportable world view, we will come to a superior knowledge of and vision for futurity. Third, I hope that the audience, shared by an impressive roundtable of polymathic, public intellectuals, will transform into a constituency for a Polymathican subculture that has central principles of intellectual sophistication and lifelong learning.</b></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b>I am building the business model as 'fee for service' rather than advertisement supported. There are several reasons for that. First, an ad based business model actually decreases the percent of total revenue that accrues to the content creator. Google is among the worst, using some misleading calculations to imply that the content provider receives 50% of generated revenue. Even if that was true, it does not compare favorably with the 70% or more that content creators receive on fee for service platforms.<br /><br />Second, the content creator is providing a service of value. It is on the basis of that value that they should be compensated. It should not be based upon their ability to sell T-shirts, insurance, electronic devices, etc. Third, the attitudes of the advertisers can influence the content. Why should they get a vote? Many Youtubers complain that they are being demonetized, when, in reality, the problem is that advertisers do not agree with the message and, consequently, choose to advertise elsewhere.<br /><br />The current business model at Patreon, Locals, Substack etc. is to have 'true fans' fund the operation. This encourages the content creator to place most of their content behind a relatively expensive paywall. I think that $60 per year or more is too much, but that is how the platforms are currently constructed. My goal is to eventually set up a site where content creators can get 5X the audience at 20% of current prices and come out even. That benefits both the content creators and the content consumers.<br /></b></span></span><br /></p><p><b><u><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">The Decline of Netflix, et al.</span><br /></span></span></u></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Recently,
Netflix informed its employees that "We let viewers decide what's
appropriate for them, versus having Netflix censor specific artists or
voices." It went on to say, 'I</span></span></b><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">f
you'd find it hard to support our content breadth, Netflix may not be
the best place for you." This set off a firestorm, with many people
rejoicing that, officially, Netflix refuses to put their programming
decisions through a 'woke' filter while others were scandalized and
threatened to quit or unsubscribe.<br /><br />Most observers likened it to
the wholly pragmatic Michael Jordan quote that, 'Republicans buy
sneakers, too'. I confess that I suspect that Netflix would have
reacted less aggressively, if David Chappelle, the comedian whose
comments in a Netflix special sparked the controversy, was not such a
huge money maker for them. Still, like Elon Musk, I support the Netflix
decision to not let a minority sensibility dictate the programming
intended to appeal to the largest market possible.<br /><br />However, this
is only a temporary fix. A demographic earthquake is about to
level the industry. It will be one of a series of transitions that, in the end, will contribute to the fragmentation of EUNA (Europe and North America). People do,
in fact, respond to ideological issues through their content consumption, even when entertainment is the primary goal. However, market forces are
generally more powerful because they are more personal.<br /><br />Internet based streaming
services began with Netflix and, over time, Hulu and Amazon Prime,
emerged as competitors. Today, the market has expanded with many
smaller streaming services. There are exceptions, of course, such as Viki. However, most are still attempting to seize the mass
market. However, in the longer term, more targeted streaming services
will come to dominate. While Netflix may remain the market leader,
catering to the largest market segment, it really has little opportunity
to reverse a long term trend of market share loss.<br /><br />The reason is
simply because there is significant diversity in personal preferences
in streaming services. Often it is just the traditional differences of
romcoms vs. action films, etc. but it also can be a reflection of
differences in intellectual abilities or cultural values. While 'Leftish' consumers may see a proliferation of LGBTQ+ characters as a positive, for many 'Rightish' consumers it may make the content unappealing, not because they are bigots, but because they don't related to the depicted social environment. The net
result is that many people, whether Leftish or Rightish, have little or no interest in most of the
offerings of Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, etc. Consequently, while a person may
pay for over 100 different offerings, series, movies and documentaries,
they may only be interested in 1/4 or less of them.<br /><br />My readers
and I tend to be intellectuals and lean toward Apollonian values over
Dionysian values. Also, intellectualism matters. One of the reasons I liked 'Gilmore Girls' was because Yale graduates talked like Yale graduates, even though that meant that they used many words that most people don't know. I prefer Science Fiction offerings that don't hit me over the head with bad science. <br /><br />So consider, a streaming service that provides an
equal number of offerings as Netflix but is skewed toward Polymathicans. Rather than less
than 1/4 of the offerings being interesting, perhaps 3/4 are. In other
words, this more targeted streaming service will have a perceived value
that is 3X greater than Netflix but at approximately the same price.
For us, Netflix can't compete.<br /><br />In the other direction, the more
customers a streaming service has the more offerings it can afford to
make without materially increasing its costs. This economy of scale
limits how many streaming services will be viable. However, streaming
services are cheap enough that people typically have more than one. So,
a Marxist/Feminist streaming service may offer few content options, but the
far greater cultural richness for the target market, combined with a larger 'progressive' streaming
service of broader appeal may find success.<br /><br />Another complicating trend is the emergence of the
rental and purchase options for specific shows and movies. A reasonable
future consumer behavior might be to purchase first run offerings and
then to subscribe to a targeted streaming service for culturally comfortable reruns.
Direct to streaming 'video novels', at 35USD per 12 hours of content, will
likely supplant movies that typically sell for 15USD per 1.6 hours of
content.<br /><br />So, while Netflix is trying to deal with the pressures
of a rapidly segmenting market by eschewing strong cultural signals in its
content, in the end, the multiplicity of market segments will win. An obvious reaction
to the Netflix rejection of woke-only content is that a woke only
streaming service will emerge. This will be a watershed event in the process.<br /></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><u><span style="font-size: large;">R.E. January 6, Pay Attention to the Bottom Line</span></u></span></span></span></b></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">We are now in the middle of a January 6 presentation and this has placed the 2020 U.S. Presidential election front and center. The Republicans have charged that it nothing more than a 'Show Trial'. Even some Democrats have said essentially the same thing. That charge is not without merit. When the committee was first formed, Minority Leader, Kevin McCarthy, as is the norm, appointed Republican members. Speaker Pelosi rejected them and appointed two hand picked Republicans of her own. Consequently, the current activity is properly called a presentation rather than a hearing. It is a carefully crafted by Democrats present evidence that benefits Democrats and is devoid oft any opportunity for rebuttal or refutation by Republicans. It was produced by James Goldston, a former President of ABC News. In other words, it more closely resembles '60 Minutes' than a House hearing.<br /><br />One might very reasonably question whether the presentation is fair. It clearly is not in the sense that the obvious target is former President Donald Trump and he, quite contrary to American principles, is being denied the opportunity to face his accusers. He has no opportunity for cross examination. There is no opportunity for discovery. In other words, the presentation contains a subset of all evidence and neither Trump nor sympathetic media is allowed to view the evidence in its entirety to determine if the evidence has been selected to present a biased interpretation of the facts.<br /><br />The Left Silo, obviously, is pushing very hard on the narrative that there was a conspiracy to engage in insurrection. The Right Silo is skeptical. I strongly suggest that my readers who want to have an opinion on January 6 should read both the Left Silo and the Right Silo. I, actually, do not intend to delve into the arguments on either side, either in support or in refutation. Rather, I am going to pay attention to the bottom line. What was the result of the event and which side does it favor?<br /><br />If January 6 was, in fact, a Right Wing plot, it was a truly boneheaded one. All we need do is put ourselves in the room when the plan was being hatched. How did they see it going down? A large number of unarmed rioters would burst into the Capitol building and be confronted by armed Capital police and, perhaps, National Guard. The members of Congress, who were either presenting or listening to evidence of election improprieties, would be spirited away. In some fairly short period of time, the mayhem would be subdued and the Capitol cleared. The House would be called back into session and the process would continue, with or without, a continuation of the presentation of objections.<br /><br />As it turned out, the hours of presentation of evidence was cancelled, the House went directly to a vote and the Biden Electors were ratified. So, the bottom line is that the Trump supporters who were planning to present evidence of election irregularities didn't have the opportunity to do so. Yes, there was a short delay in ratification, but mostly shutting up the Trump supporters was the only significant result. Instead of reading hours of evidence purportedly supporting the charge of a stolen election into the Congressional record, they went directly to a vote. So, in that sense, rather than delaying the ratification, it sped it up.</span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Now, we are meant to conclude that Donald Trump and some of his advisors orchestrated the riot. My reaction to that is that while anything (almost) is possible, it would have been very stupid for them to do so. It did not benefit them in the slightest and has proven to be a PR nightmare. Furthermore, there doesn't seem to be any possibility of a positive outcome. Are we to imagine that the intent was for this unarmed group to enter the Capitol building and hold the Representatives hostage until they agreed to not seat the Biden Electors? The alleged scheme makes no sense on any level. If Trump or any of his key advisors had been involved in this plot, they would have stopped it. It was so clearly total folly. Many of them believed that the election had been 'stolen', however, this plot, no matter how well executed, was in no way remedial.<br /><br />Again, I'm bottom lining this. I am not arguing for or against the quality of evidence for election irregularities. However, the only significant result of this event was that several hours of evidence supporting election irregularities was not presented. Once the situation was resolved, the House resolved to halt testimony and go directly to ratification of the election. That was a benefit to the Democrats, not the Republicans. <br /> </span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">For all of the 21st Century, every time a Republican won the Presidency, some Democrat Representatives objected to the seating of Republican Electors and they presented evidence. Every time a Democrat won the Presidency, some Republican Representatives objected and presented evidence. This was not the unprecedented behavior. Rather, it was routine and the MSM did not make a big deal over it in the past elections. This time was different and the Left Silo behaved differently and implied that these objections were not the norm. That is because, around 40% of Americans believed that the results in key states had been 'stolen' and the Right Silo MSM had become large enough to matter. <br /><br />Furthermore, more than any time in the past, save for, perhaps, the charges that the Democrats 'stole' Illinois in the Kennedy/Nixon election and that the Republicans 'stole' Florida in the Bush/Gore election, for the first time, there actually was a mountain of evidence that many fair minded people may have considered to be dispositive. In other words, if the presentation of evidence in the Congressional Record was allowed, the Democrats were at risk of losing control of the narrative of the 'Big Lie'. <br /><br />The Democrats still have a problem. It certainly appears that the Republicans will take over the House in 2023 and with a very large contingent of Trump supporters. At that time, if they can't derail it, they will likely find that they will be the target of a House inquiry into the January 6 event with the intent to establish culpability on the part of certain Democrats. Additionally, it is quite possible that the MAGA Representatives will be powerful enough to present their evidence of a stolen election.<br /><br />Again, I emphasize that I am not attempting to support either the 'Big Lie' or the 'Big Steal' scenario. I am agnostic with regard to who would have won, had the 2020 Presidential election been a perfect one. Rather, I am generally of the opinion that the evidence simply does not exist to make a determination of which candidate 'wone'. This article is about who is going to own the narrative and what the sides may or may not have done to own it. <br /><br />I do believe that if the U.S. is to be taken seriously as a liberal, representative democracy, it really needs to clean up its election process. However, that is a different article that I will publish in the future.</span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><br /><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><u><span style="font-size: large;">Corporate Profits and Inflation<br /></span></u><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: black;">Recently on one of my social media threads, someone implied that inflation is increasing because 'greedy corporations' are increasing their prices in order to increase corporate profits. I can see why that may seem right, and the Left and Right Media don't contradict the inference. It is, however, mostly not correct. Like nearly all issues of any significance, inflation is causally multivariate and not just a little bit so. While 'X causes Y' is, in a sense, calming and fits easily into a twenty second sound byte, it is also rarely true and the desire to believe in simple answers can be used to manipulate an audience. Both Silos, whether represented by a pundit, politician or professor, often will take advantage of this desire to simplify. On the Left, it is manifested in the 'Putin price hike'. On the Right, the canard is that it is all Biden's fault. Both are, actually, components of the current acceleration in inflation. However, neither is the predominant reason.<br /></span></span></span></span></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: black;">At the outset, I want to make it completely clear that I am not an apologist for corporations. I worked in that environment for decades and frequently observed reasoning that caused me to think, 'Well, that just isn't right'. Also, large corporations are run by people with graduate degrees. In the business schools, students are indoctrinated with 'stakeholder theory'. This is the idea that enterprises must first be good corporate citizens, beholden to customers, employees, vendors, local governments, etc. in addition to their traditional, fiduciary responsibility to maximize risk adjusted shareholder return. However, they are people who, just like most people, want to provide well for their families. They are remunerated by salary, but also by stock options. So, it is a bit like Animal Farm. All animals (stakeholders) are equal, but the pigs (shareholders) are more equal.<br /><br />It is absolutely the case that money supply times velocity plus or minus change in net savings, defines the supply of money and it establishes the supply portion of supply and demand in the inflation equation. In other words, if the supply of money increases by 5% but production of goods and services remains constant, there will be 5% inflation. However, all of these factors have feedbacks, so it actually isn't that simple. Having said that, it is still generally the primary cause of inflation.<br /> </span></span></span></span></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: black;">Of course, there is scarcity inflation as well. Recently, oil supply fell in relation to demand and the price of oil increased. Because oil is a component of nearly all products and services, prices generally went up. The Right will often suggest that if the price of oil goes up and there is no increase in money supply, the prices of everything else will go down. That, actually, isn't what happens. Rather, the demand for everything else goes down and we end up with an inflation driven recession.<br /> </span></span></span></span></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: black;">The Federal Reserve and other central banks do not want to instigate a recession, so they do increase money supply. However, there is another factor; the Federal government can have a deficit equal to the nominal increase in GDP with no consequence as long as the Central Bank buys the bonds necessary to fund the shortfall. On the other hand, if the deficit is too large, and the Central Bank buys all the bonds, the money supply so created will exceed the banks' targets and inflation will grow above the optimal rate. This is the primary reason for the current inflation.<br /> </span></span></span></span></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: black;">The relationship between inflation and corporate profits is a complex one. Obviously, if scarcity pushes up the price of oil, the oil companies will earn more money. That, however, over the long term is usually compensated by the lower profits caused when prices fall. That assumes that markets are perfect and they are not. Profits in an industry can be higher than one would expect if there are barriers to market entry and that measurably restricts market entry and, thus, competition. This creates a cartel effect. In a industry with low barriers to market entry, if profits increase, competitors will emerge that will undercut prices and bring profits back under control.<br /> </span></span></span></span></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: black;">As a general statement, corporate profits are going up over the long term. That is partially due to growing economies causing growing profits. However, it is also due to the long term trend toward more automation. Corporations are always looking for ways to replace high cost employees with lower cost machines. There are limits; the cost of the machines must be less than the savings from reducing labor. If not, the corporation will experience lower profits and they would not knowingly do that. In other words, if the net present value of the machines is one million dollars and it saves five hundred thousand dollars in labor, the automation will not be done. However, if the net present value of the machines is five hundred thousand dollars and the labor savings is one million dollars, the enterprise will buy the machine and profits will increase by five hundred thousand dollars. Because corporations generally do the latter but not the former, in general, corporate profits are increasing.<br /><br />There is a persistent trend for the global economy to become more automated and will likely do so at an accelerating rate over the next 30 years, corporate profits will also increase. Because the costs of the machines, including the necessary increase in profits, must be less than the cost of the labor that they replace, the profits go up by more than is required and those excess profits typically are used to lower prices and increase market share. We know this because in the 1990s and 2000s, as the manufacturing costs of electronics fell, competition did result in quickly falling prices. Simultaneously, stock prices started soaring because the resulting corporate profits were increasing dramatically as well. </span></span></span></span></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: black;">There is a component of both the Right Silo and the Left Silo that will portray a future world in which AI and advanced robotics do everything. They imagine a world of nearly 100% unemployment with just a handful of people who own everything. This is called the Luddite Fallacy. It has been around for 200 years and it has never been true. I will discuss this in great detail in an upcoming book, 'The Death of Capitalism: Information Age Economics'.<br /><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><u><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></u></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><u><span style="font-size: large;">If you have not already done so, please register for MichaelWFergus</span></u><i><span style="font-size: large;">on.Substack.com and Polymaths.Locals.com. Also, please like and share. My long term objective is to create educational, career, research, social and lifestyle options for Polymathicans. The primary impediment to accomplishing that goal is lack of exposure. A couple of your clicks will take only seconds, but will benefit you in the long run.h<br /></span></i></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></b></p>Michael's Resumehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15472400070847709603noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-239620140160681751.post-52795704464745160612022-05-29T12:20:00.004-04:002022-06-04T06:28:30.839-04:00Newsletter 4: Energy, Davos, Income Inequality<p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b>MichaelWFerguson.Substack.com grew 72% last week. While that is impressive growth, the subscriber base is still very small in absolute terms. It needs to be much, much bigger if it is to disrupt the Left and Right narratives. That is my goal. They both need to be disrupted. They both tell a self-serving story rather than the truth. <br /><br />Growth is usually comprised of a linear component related to general exposure and an exponential component related to virality. Consequently, I am not sanguine about our growth without some sort of promotion. I have tried Facebook ads and the cost per new subscriber is prohibitive. So, I still have a challenge in front of me, if our readership is ever to become large enough to matter.<br /><br /><br /><br /><u><span style="font-size: large;">Oil & Gas Now, But Geothermal Is the Future<br /></span></u></b></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b>With oil prices way up and supply threatened to be constrained by political tensions, oil and gas are definitely a major topic in both the Right and Left MSM silos. However, neither are getting the story correct. The short term solutions to crushing energy prices are different than the long term solutions but neither are what you might suspect nor as you are being told.<br /><br />Joe Biden won the U.S. Presidential election and immediately oil prices took off. While the conflict in Ukraine is causing 'uncertaintity inflation', most of the price increase before and after the Russian military action in the Ukraine is simply a matter of the market behaving rationally. The concept is pretty straightforward. The Biden Administration's hostility toward hydrocarbons caused them to take steps to constrain supply. That simple fact, alone, caused prices to rise.<br /><br />It is a matter of what it typically referred to as a vicious cycle. Oil producers have some flexibility in how much oil they pump. The logic is simple. If I can pump my oil today and be paid $35 per barrel or I can keep it in the ground until next year and sell it for $70, which do I do? Clearly, I keep it in the ground and that decision, alone, lowers supply and causes upward price pressure. As an oil producer this fulfillment of expectations alone, convinces me that I should continue to keep my oil in the ground. As long term contracts expire, I am reluctant to enter into new ones. So, the price of oil continues to climb.<br /><br />It is true that the restrictions that the Biden administration has placed on exploration and development will, over time, actually reduce supply and because of that, producers will be reluctant to pump at lower prices. However, right now, the dynamic is primarily one of price expectations driving supply down and prices up.<br /><br />Fortunately, it works in the other direction as well. If the Federal government loosens supply constraints, general expectations will cause oil prices to fall from their current price of over $100 to, say, $50. This will convince oil producers that they should pump and sell oil now before prices fall. Since this, alone, will cause supplies to increase, prices will fall which will just further convince the market to start pumping as fast as possible. By doing so, they fulfill their own prophesy.<br /><br />In a recent speech, Biden actually 'said the quiet thing out loud'. They are encouraging high gas prices because it makes alternative energy sources more cost competitive and thus, they believe, it will accelerate the transition to alternative energy sources. There is more quiet part still not being said. That is that with alternative sources, energy prices in general will never return to the low prices of the recent past. <br /><br />The long term alternative energy future, while optimistic, is not what is currently being peddled. The future is actually dominated by geothermal, ocean power and, only third, nuclear power. Those are all base load energy sources and 'peak shaving' energy supply will involve stored energy utilizing many technologies, including solar and wind, but also including natural gas and some biofuels. The driving force behind this diversity of energy sources, as today, is locality and politics.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544213010487" target="_blank">Enhanced Geothermal Systems</a> (EGS) is simply a matter of drilling a hole down to hot rock, pouring water down the hole and getting steam in return. It is a simple and functionally limitless energy source. Why isn't it being touted loudly? Because there are vested interests behind other energy sources that promote them and EGS lacks powerful sponsors. That can shape the midterm, but in the end, history shows that the best solutions almost always win.<br /><br />How is EGS kept in the background? By a studied and intentional lack of imagination that will convince the casual observer that it is not feasible. For example, Europe has a 'technical potential' of around 7,000 GW which is several multiples of Europe's energy usage. However, the 'sustainable potential' is reported at around 35 GW, or a small fraction of current total energy usage. What is the difference between technical potential and sustainable potential? It is primarily the result of the assumed reservoir. In other words, if the rock is porous, the water you pour down the hole will create a reservoir of large size, so that a lot of heat can be extracted in a short time. If the rock isn't porous, the rock that is exposed to the water (which is turned into steam) is cooled off and the resource must wait until the natural thermal conductivity of the rock reheats it.<br /><br />There is a similar problem with nonporous rock with oil and gas, except it is a matter of the resource flowing to the drill hole in order to be extracted. We have solved this problem with fracking. Fracking will also work with EGS and is being explored. Of course, as it was with O&G, it is being fought.<br /><br />I am currently writing a white paper on a hypothetical Polymathican microstate. In it I propose that the primary energy supply should be an open cycle OTEC (Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion). I do so for several reasons. First, it is a local energy source that takes geopolitical considerations out of the mix. Second, it produces prodigious quantities of fresh water. The location, Samana Cay, Bahamas, is uninhabited primarily because of a lack of fresh water. Third, it is more easily scalable to the population size than many of the potential energy sources. The geology of the Caribbean does not make it suitable for EGS.<br /><br />There is a couple of takeaways, here. First, high oil prices are primarily a market phenomenon that results from the Biden Administration's hostility toward hydrocarbons. Once a new, more oil friendly U.S. government is in place, prices will fall as they rose on expectations. The Ukraine conflict is causing Russian O&G to be diverted to China who will rely less on Middle East oil and it, consequently, will be sold to Europe. While there is mid-term disruption, once the delivery systems are in place, supply won't be a problem. Second, the long term energy picture is very positive and supply will be even more diverse than today, with EGS replacing hydrocarbons as the primary source.<br /><br /></b></span></span><br /><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b><u><span style="font-size: large;">WEF, WHO and Davos<br /></span></u></b></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b>This past week the World Economic Forum held its annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland while, simultaneously, the World Health Organization convened in Geneva, Switzerland to create a global health response treaty. In the U.S., on the Right, observers such as Steven K. Bannon have gone so far as to identify a 'Party of Davos' and declare that they represent a Global Elite that is attempting to take over the world. It has been seen as a bit 'tin foil hat', but in a Davos speech, the founder of the WEF, Klaus Schwab, stated quite clearly that he perceives Bannon's statement to be true. In other words, it is not a 'conspiracy theory' because they quite openly admit that they are manipulating the world for its own good.<br /><br />This conspiracy theory of a Global Elite that secretly controls the world is far from new. When I was a young adult, it was the Trilateral Commission that was secretly controlling the world. Then, in the 1990s, it was Bilderberg. Actually, the World Economic Forum was started in the same time frame but only recently has come to be the dominant NGO. I have always been conflicted about the existence of these organizations. On one hand, they represent a threat that coordinated, undemocratic organizations may exercise undue influence over communities and force an unnatural global homogeneity. On the other hand, powerful people around the world acting unilaterally is also dangerous. They should be talking with each other, but they also should respect regional and local differences.<br /><br />Last year, Xi Jinping gave a rousing speech in which he rather blatantly presented a vision of the world where a Global Elite, led by the Chinese, would rule the world for the benefit of all the world's citizens. Without placing the Chinese in a position of preeminence, Klaus Schwab, this year essentially concurred. One panelist overtly stated that while the global elites are cooperating to an unprecedented degree, the local hoi polloi are not buying into it. <br /><br />In that observation, she appears to be spot on. There is, in fact, a developing a conflict between Globalism and National Populism. The Globalists make the argument that since the threats and opportunities of an Information Age world are global, local autonomy is counter productive. The Nationalist Populists argue that a Global Elite will enforced unnecessary cultural homogeneity and render the individual powerless to exercise personal sovereignty. While the Left and Right MSM will argue one side or the other, the reflective person will likely, as I have, come to the conclusion that they both have a good point.<br /><br />What conclusion should we draw from this? My position is that humanity, as a whole, has not yet found the proper balance between collectivism and individuality. Also, they will not likely do so in the contemporary environment of mutual antagonism. The empowered MSM of the Left demonizes Donald Trump, Nigel Farage, Marine Le Pen, Victor Orban, et alia. Why? It is not because they are generally evil. It is because they are resisting the formation and empowerment of a Global Elite.<br /><br />The French Right has been vociferous in stating their commitment to the preservation of French culture. I support that; it has been one of the great cultural centers in all history. While Donald Trump has emphasized economic and geopolitical provincialism, he is certainly not blind to the distinctive American cultural identity that was forged in the 20th Century. I am sympathetic with this, as well. As a world traveler, I do not see it as a net positive that everywhere I go, there are McDonald's, KFC and Domino Pizza. Local flavor is why you go. The Nationalist Populists should not be demonized. They have a point that true diversity should not be given short shrift as we create the future of humanity.<br /><br />On the other hand, Globalism does not necessarily create an oppressive monoculture. It is possible to coordinate without falling prey to groupthink. This year at Davos, much to my surprise, Henry Kissinger articulated a perspective on the Russia-Ukraine situation that was surprisingly close to mine and certainly at odds with the collectively promulgated messaging of Davos. Essentially, he said that Zelenskyy needs to accept that Donbas and Crimea simply do not want to be part of a Western facing Ukraine and that they should negotiate an agreement of independence. So, some diversity of thought seems to be allowed within the WEF, but there is no doubt that the demonization of Putin and the lionizing of Ukraine and Zelenskyy which is WEF's consensus opinion is not threatened. This is obviously a danger implicit in the concept of a Global Elite; one viewpoint can run roughshod over other viewpoints and there may be no mechanism by which minority opinions can find meaningful expression. In other words, there is a meaningful risk of a tyranny of the majority and, if brought into existence, there is no obvious escape.<br /><br />In the final analysis, this boils down to the question of, in a highly complex world of local, regional and global power structures, at what scale should the ultimate sovereign power reside? There is no clear cut answer and no satisfactory solution will be found when the undeniable tension between collectivism and individualsm is ignored.<br /><br />Give it some thought. Even though it is generally being ignored, this is one of the great questions of our time.<br /><br /><u><span style="font-size: large;">Pareto is Not a Conspiracy</span></u><br /><br />There is a surprising observation that the ratio .8ⁿ:.2ⁿ seems to describe a large number of natural and human social phenomena. When n=1, it is commonly referred to as the 80-20 Rule, but over its whole range is referred to as The Pareto Distribultion. A fundamental problem with the current interpretation of Western, Enlightenment Culture is that it embraces a notion of equality that conflicts with the reality of Pareto.<br /><br />Simply put, in performance based environments, such as sales, publication of peer reviewed papers, various skill oriented games, etc., the distribution is not equal but, rather, conforms to a ratio of </b></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b>X</b></span></span><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b>ⁿ:(1-X)ⁿ where X=.8 most of the time. Pareto, himself, noted that a bucket of peas will have 80% of its peas in 20% of its pods. It has also been noted that the size of meteorites follows a Pareto distribution. Nobody is going to seriously suggest that the distribution of natural phenomena are the result of any kind of restriction of opportunity. Pareto also applies to results in human organizations and it is an uphill battle to put forth a discrimination argument.<br /><br />As I state regularly, free enterprise is very efficient (some would say optimally so), but it is heartless. An economy that operates on a strict Pareto distribution will result in 50% of the population receiving just 0.68% of the income and wealth. In other words, without mitigating forces, Pareto will create a handful of winners and an enormous number of losers. While the economic inequalities created by Pareto may be natural, they are certainly not advisable.<br /><br />First, communities, whether small or large operate through implicit social contracts. That is true even in those communities that are not the least bit democratic or liberal. It is nearly universally understood that some minimum economic condition is required before a citizen feels properly cherished. Right now, both North America and Europe are experiencing large immigration of economic refugees. If people don't achieve a certain standard of living, they will leave, if they can. If they can't, they are likely to riot.<br /><br />Second, the hoi polloi are not just workers, they are all consumers. If the bottom 80% make too much money, the 20% will see their profits decline because of high labor costs. However, if they make too little money, the 80% make bad consumers and that hurts sales for the 20%. So, these two considerations tend to be balanced to create the optimum situation and the maximal income for the 20%. This, actually, was the <a href="http://projects.leadr.msu.edu/makingmodernus/exhibits/show/henry-ford-and-the-middle-clas/-5#:~:text=In%201914%2C%20Henry%20Ford%20did,day%20to%20%245.00%20a%20day.&text=Ford%20also%20made%20his%20work%20days%20only%208%20hours." target="_blank">great revelation of Henry Ford</a> who, by the one decision to pay his workers substantially more, instigated the great economic growth of 20th Century America.<br /><br />Third, the very wealthy are not quite as avaricious as the hoi polloi imagine. Even the 19th Century 'robber barons' such as Carnegie, Mellon and Rockefellar gave very large amounts to philanthropic activities. Today, the 'Giver's Pledge' has over 200 billionaires who have pledged to give at least 50% of their wealth to charity. To be sure, we can find examples of people possessing great wealth and power who seem indifferent to the plight of others. However, that is not the norm and the elites as a group do, in fact, care about the economic well being of the average person. Today, many of the largest companies are setting internal minimum wages that are much higher than what has been set by governments.<br /><br />The politics of Western civilization is dominated by the Left who views income disparity as a sign of unequal opportunities and the Right who, frankly, view it as a sign of indolence. Neither position is defensible. For the most part, income inequality is the result of differences in educational attainment which is primarily the result of differences in cognitive ability. <br /><br />So, while economic disparity may not be evidence of oppression, it is also the case that we, as a civilization, do want to mitigate poverty for both ethical and practical reasons. The problem is that implementing anti-poverty programs can have negative and unintended consequences.<br /><br />Arthur Laffer has made the observation that, while reducing economic disparities is a laudable goal, it comes with a price. When one raises more taxes from the wealthy, assuming you are successful, you disincentivize them because the proceeds from their productive efforts is lessened. When you give the proceeds from taxing the rich to the poor, you disincentivize them because they don't need to work to receive purchasing power. This is why I say that increasing economic security lowers income on a society wide basis. It may still be advisable to do so, but one should be cognizant of the trade-off. <br /><br />So, to summarize, Pareto seems to naturally cause income and wealth inequality and mitigating that inequality comes at a price to society as a whole. Still, it is a laudable goal and it is a topic that really needs to be discussed responsibly and not be made a partisan issue.<br /><br /><u><span style="font-size: large;">White Paper</span></u></b></span></span></b></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b>My intention is to create and disseminate a weekly newsletter of approximately 3,000 words that will address matters of current significance. This most often will be discussing 'sins of commission' but will sometimes be 'sins of omission', i.e. the press should have covered a topic and they didn't. However, there are issues that are too big for a 1,000 word essay but too small for a book. In these cases, I may publish a 'white paper'. I am working on the first right now covering a topic about which many people have expressed some interest.<br /><br />The last of a trilogy of books I am plannng is 'The Rise of the Microstate'. After dealing with important fundamental issues in 'A New Enlightenment: Information Age Political Philosophy' and 'The Death of Capitalism: Information Age Economics' I will undertake a detailed examination of how microstates will evolve from the disintegration of large nation states, how they will differ, and how they will interact with each other. However, as basic research into that book, I have designed in great detail a Polymathic microstate, located on the uninhabited Bahamian island of Samana Cay. It is assumed to have a population of about 250K.<br /><br />The design process includes matters of urban design, governance, geopolitics, economics, culture and sociology. Aware that I have been creating this hypothetical polymathic microstate, some peope have asked about when I might make the design public. I was thinking that it would come after the publication of 'The Rise f the Microstate'. However, that won't be for years and I can, in fact, publish something now. Naturally, right now I will simply assert things that I will support later. But, I think that is better than leaving it to the end.<br /><br />It will be published for 'supporters', but I will elaborate on that later.<br /><br />As always, I encourage you to forward this newsletter and, if you are receiving it as a forward, to register at MichaelWFerguson.Substack.com<br /></b></span></span><br /><br /></b></span></span></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><br /></span></span></b></p>Michael's Resumehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15472400070847709603noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-239620140160681751.post-69076224848003731002022-05-22T05:27:00.004-04:002022-05-22T05:27:51.262-04:00Newsletter 3: U.S. Politics, China and Monetary Policy<p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">My newsletter is intended for readers with high IQs, well developed erudition and, most importantly, a life goal of acquiring an objectively supportable world view. I suspect that nearly everyone will say that their world view is based upon evidence. However, even a cursory consideration of the most widely held world views as expressed by the major media outlets are predicated upon demonstrably false assumptions. <br /><br />I recently got a question from a subscriber who wanted to know how the Federal Reserve's REPO facility might affect future Quantitative Tightening. Great question. It may have an effect. He, like most of my readers, constantly strives to acquire a higher level of general knowledge and then use it to modify their view of things. That makes them unusual at a very fundamental level. In today's world, it is extremely difficult to not be tainted by partisan misinformation, which is rampant on both sides. Here, however, I assiduously commit to following facts to conclusions without regard to what I may want to be the answers. Reality has no obligation to conform to my sensibilities, or yours, or President Macron's or Putin's. As the saying goes, "It is what it is" and that is what we should embrace.<br /></span></span><br /><br /> <u><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Three political parties in the U.S. appears inevitable</span></span></u></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">It appears that the U.S. is about to evolve into three political parties. This is critical to its operations because the U.S. does not have a parliamentary system. It has no practical way to deal with three empowered constituencies at the Federal or State level. This is an intermediate step toward the inevitable breakup of the country. As I emphasize at every opportunity, making North America similar to Europe with many sovereign nations affiliated through a spectrum of treaties, is healthy for Western civilization as a whole.<br /><br />The process that is underway begins with the seizure of the Republican party by MAGA. There is no doubt that this is happening. In one tranche of primaries, 22 of 22 Trump endorsed candidates won. The strong tendency for establishment Republicans to be anti-Trump has transformed into an awareness among many Conservatives that establishment Republicans are better described as elitists (sometimes called 'country club Republicans) than as Conservatives. Their objections to Trump were not, and still are not, political. Rather he was seen as a threat to their power structure.<br /><br />That is how MAGA views it and it has only strengthen their resolve to fight against 'the swamp'. Estimates are that about 80% of Republicans have transferred their allegiance to MAGA from the 'establishment' Republican National Committee. The nature of majority rule is that it tends to exaggerate majorities. In other words, the Republicans of the 117th Congress will likely contain more than 80% MAGA House members.</span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">In the 2022 mid-term elections, there is a high probability that MAGA Republicans will comprise more than 50% of all the House of Representatives. Their policies are fundamentally incompatible with the establishment Republicans and the overwhelming MAGA majority within the Caucus will completely disenfranchise them. We will know whether or not this is done successfully if Kevin McCarthy does not ascend to the Speakership. The most likely MAGA candidate would be Jim Jordan. If Jordan ascends to the position of Speaker, a torrent of anti-establishment legislative activity will ensue and a profound backlash will result among not just the Democrats and MSM, but from the establishment Republicans, as well. <br /><br />At that point, the establishment Republicans won't have much choice but to switch parties. While they are definitely right of the establishment Democrats, they are closer to them than the MAGA crowd. This is fundamentally different from what happened with the 'Gingrich Revolution' and the Tea Party movement. While both brought in Republican majorities that contained many Conservative reformers, in reality, in both cases, the establishment Republicans retained control. It is likely to be different this time. It appears that the MAGA reformers will actually take over the Republican Caucus in the House.<br /></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">There seems little doubt that Mitch McConnell, Mitt Romney, Lisa Murkowsky, Susan Collins, et alia will switch, should MAGA take over the Senate Republican Caucus as well. There will undoubtedly be establishment Republicans in the House who will switch, but it is more difficult to determine which ones will survive the MAGA primary challenges, so the scope of the switch is uncertain. According to many MAGA supporters, this party switch would simply be acknowledging the reality that moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans are, in fact, the Uniparty of the elites. <br /><br />This Uniparty, or the Centrists, quite reasonably may assume that it will constitute a new majority. It may in the Senate, but it looks unlikely that it will do so in the 117th Congress in the House even with likely Party switching. While the Centrists may lose the House of Representatives for two years from 2022 to 2024, they may believe that, with the consolidation of Center Left and Center right, they will acquire control of both the House and the Senate in 2024. <br /><br />The problem with that scenario is that while they will cement their control of the middle, the 'woke' wing of the Democratic party may feel betrayed. They are already complaining that the Biden Administration and the Democrat controlled Congress haven't governed enough to the Left. They actually believe that, if it had governed more to the Left, it would keep the House in 2022. The problem is that if there is an influx of Center-Right Senators and Representatives in the Democratic Party, the progressives in the Democratic Party will be even further marginalized. In other words, while Democratic leadership has felt the need to accommodate 'the squad', with new Center Right members, they may not feel that it is necessary.<br /><br />One might think that the far Left wing would stay with the Democratic party and work from within to get more done. They may, but the polls suggest that doing so will be futile unlikely. It is actually very likely that they will find more power in leaving the Democrats and forming a new, Progressive Party. The demographics are surprising and different previous attempts at third parties. On the few occasions that third parties have arisen in the past, they have been unable to gain even one member in Congress and save for George Wallace in 1968, even one Electoral College vote for President. That is because their support has been diffuse and comprised a insignificant minority everywhere.<br /><br />That would not be the case for a new 'Progressive Party'. While it would be a relatively small percent across all of the U.S., it would likely constitute the majority in California, Oregon and Washington. While not likely a majority in any Northeast Liberal State, it would likely win some House seats there that would compensate for the few that they would lose on the West Coast. The Progressives might feel, as a meaningful swing vote in Congress and in Presidential elections, that it would obtain more power as a third party than as a relatively small minority within a new, more Centrist Democratic party.<br /><br />It could be a meaningful third party with, perhaps, six Senators and 15% of House seats which could eliminate a functioning majority in both chambers. There would be three caucuses that, as we have seen, strongly tend to vote along party lines. This is primarily the case because Party leaders control committee assignments which, in turn, control the strings of power. While it is likely that the Progressives would still support the proposed legislation of Democrats in the House, as the lesser of two evils, in the Senate, the lesser representation of the Progressive party might put the Republicans in effective control of that Chamber. <br /><br />The situation in the Presidency is different, because the approximately 13% of the Electoral College that would likely go to the Progressives would guarantee that no candidate reached a majority. In this scenario, no Presidential race in the 21st Century would have been decided in the Electoral College and it is unlikely that they would going forward. Virtually all Presidential elections will be thrown into the House. There, because voting is done by State delegations, the Republicans would likely invariably win.</span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">While these situations are fundamentally untenable, it is not clear how the outcome can be short circuited. Political strife, which has been increasing anyway, would become, as it was during the Civil War, regional, ideological and rancorous. This is both good news and bad news. The tension that was felt between Trump and the EU would become more or less permanent. Domestic polarization would continue to increase. However, a</span></span></b><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">s I have been saying for over 20 years, the U.S. is headed for a divorce and this potential 2022 outcome could get it closer to that point. Right now, the core of the MAGA region of the U.S. is becoming progressively more defiant and is tending toward outright disregard of Federal rules and regulations. However, the political dynamic for the West Coast may favor secession for the West Coast, as well. It unnerves many Americans, but it would make EUNA a geopolitically healthier place. </span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><br /><u><span style="font-size: large;">China is at risk, economically and politically<br /></span></u></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">In 1986, virtually everyone believed that the Soviet Union was solid. Five years later, it fell apart. Today, a similar opinion seems to apply to China. Is China, as a cohesive nation state, safe from substantial stress as the result of economic or cultural forces? I do not believe so. While the vast majority of its 1.4 billion population identifies as Hahn and has a strong sense of cultural and ethnic identity, its national identity, I think, is weaker.</span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">There are actually many regional identities within China. These are primarily linguistic, cultural, and ethnic. <br /><br />The largest is Cantonia, which is a region in the Southeast of China comprised of Guangdong, Guangxi, Hong Kong, Macau and Hainan. Genetically, it is about 50% Han, primarily from male ancestors and is approximately 50% descended from local populations, primarily from female ancestors. It is therefore, ethnically distinct, but also linguistically distinct, traditionally speaking Cantonese. This is being mitigated by a large influx of Mandarin speaking and ethnically pure Han. There is a discernible cultural difference as well.. It has a total population of about 190 million, however, as previously stated, many of them are transplanted Mandarin speaking Han. That confuses the matter, but, still, there is a fairly well developed separatist movement in Cantonia.<br /><br />The delta region of the Yangtze river is dominated by Shanghai, with a metropolitan population of about 40 million. It is ethnically Han but, linguistically, its residents mostly speak local variants of Wu. However, during the period of European colonialism, it was substantially westernized. The qipao dress, began in Shanghai as a fusion between the Manchu traditional dress and French fashion. When the Communists took over, they didn't approve of them, but the style quickly moved to Taiwan and to Hong Kong where they were given the Cantonese name, Cheongsam. They are returning to Shanghai as it becomes defiantly more culturally Western.<br /><br />If one watches Korean, Japanese and Taiwanese TV, it is immediately clear that the modern business class views its cultural universe to be these three countries but also encompassing Singapore, Shanghai and, to a degree, Australia. They still view the U.S. and France as reasonable extensions, if a bit exotic. What I mean by this is that the show's protagonists may go to Paris, San Francisco, Shanghai, Singapore, etc. as an unremarkable turn of events. The inclusion of Shanghai is emblematic of a conflict among Shanghainese between their Han heritage and the more worldly cultural outlook that came from trade and the years of European colonialism.<br /><br />Lastly, Shanghai is larger than Beijing, has a higher standard of living and from a reasonable historical position is establishing itself as the <a href="https://www.economist.com/books-and-arts/2016/11/24/shanghai-is-racing-to-become-chinas-cultural-capital" target="_blank">cultural capital of China</a>. Taken in total, it may feel that taking a politically subordinate position to Beijing is improper. <br /><br />Obviously, three regions that are not ethnically Han, Tibet, </span></span></b><br /><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Xinjiang (Uighur) and </span></span></b><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span class="nowrap"><span title="Chinese-language romanization">Nèi Měnggǔ Zìzhìqū (</span></span></span></span></b>Mongolian) all have strong independence movements. This means that if Beijing loses its political control of China, the country could easily fragment and do so quickly. In other words, it could be a replay of the Soviet Union. However, while the dissolution was completely peaceful with the Soviet Union, I wouldn't expect it to be so in China. <br /><br />This becomes a serious concern because, currently, China is in an economic meltdown. As of April, 2022,<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLpqFudnRRU" target="_blank"> building construction is down 57%</a> year over year and young adult unemployment is approaching 20%. The Chinese government is trying to mask this economic collapse with a sudden devaluation of the Yuan around April 15, with the intent to cover domestic economic shortfalls with increased exports. Despite this tactic, economic activity is slowing dramatically. The stated explanation of COVID lockdowns is not completely wrong, however, it is masking deep, underlying economic problems.<br /><br />There is significant speculation that Xi cannot survive a substantial recession and one certainly appears to be on the horizon. The question becomes, "Can the CCP survive?" If the Chinese people blame Xi, perhaps the CCP can survive. But, they may blame it on the CCP Communist system, itself. As we see, there are cracks in the solidarity of China, so, if the powerful central control of the CCP and Beijing begins to falter, it is quite possible that the Yangtze river delta and the Pearl river valley will attempt to weaken the authority of the central government. While Beijing finds itself struggling with that, Tibet, Xingjiang and </span></span></b><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span class="nowrap"><span title="Chinese-language romanization">Nèi Měnggǔ Zìzhìqū may attempt to take advantage of the distraction to loosen ties as well.<br /><br />It is difficult to determine if this will happen and, if it does, if it will be a complete destruction of a unified China or, perhaps, just a move to greater local autonomy. Either way, it would seem unlikely that any attempt to reunify Taiwan or maintain a firm grip on Hong Kong will be feasible, especially with a growing disapproval from the community of nations. <br /><br />Either way, I am not backing off on the assessment that the primary feature of 21st Century global geopolitics will be a struggle between EUNA and China for world preeminence. However, the nature of the struggle may undergo a fundamental transformation. <br /><br />For those who wish to follow Chinese events more closely, I do suggest on YouTube <a href="https://www.youtube.com/c/ChinaUncensored" target="_blank">China Uncensored</a> and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/c/ChinaUpdate" target="_blank">China Update</a>. They present news, analysis and commentary that is from a Western perspective but is much more accurate than what is being presented within either the Right or Left information silos.</span></span><br /><br /><u><span style="font-size: large;">Understanding the Value of a Deficit</span></u></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">There is strong political sentiment within the U.S. in favor of a legally required balanced budget. Several European countries already have instituted a balanced budget requirement. This is very short sighted and rather typical of the tendency for Populist movements to force simplistic and imprudent actions. Herein, I will explain why deficit spending is not a completely bad thing. By the way, my arguments are not, as some will assume, at all Keynsian. It stems from monetary considerations, not politically motivated arguments for growing government.<br /><br />Suppose that there is 20 trillion dollars of GDP. For our purposes and for simplicity, we will assume that the velocity of money is exactly 2. The money supply is 10 trillion dollars. That works out very nicely. There is 20 trillion dollars of stuff to buy and there are 10 X 2 = 20 trillion dollars of money to buy it with. Now, suppose that next year's GDP is 21 trillion dollars. Now, if nothing changes, 20 trillion dollars will be chasing 21 trillion dollars of stuff. Either 1 trillion dollars of stuff will need to go unsold or prices must fall by about 4.8%. </span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">On the surface, that might not appear to be a problem. However, Economists have been able to firmly establish that it is. Since this has already been explained relatively well by Paul Krugman, I will simply link <a href="https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/02/why-is-deflation-bad/" target="_blank">the explanation</a>. Paul Krugman is blatantly of the Left, but in this case, this is just basic Economics and not politically driven.<br /><br />If you look for an expert in Economics who thinks deflation is good, you will have a difficult time finding anything more encouraging than the occasional assertion that some kinds of deflation may be OK. Also, in the usual case where an Economy has underutilized capacity, a bit of inflation actually stimulates real economic growth. So, there are not just arguments against deflation, there are arguments for inflation. Consequently, most central banks shoot for a bit of inflation. The U.S. Federal Reserve historically has set a target of about 2%. 2% inflation plus 3% economic growth, if achieved, means that money supply needs to grow 5% in order to hit their target of 2%. <br /><br />Actually, nearly all of the major, modern economies have governments and central banks that are converging around about the same money growth target of 2%+real economic growth. As of 2019, the U.S. GDP was around 21 trillion USD and money supply was around 15 trillion USD. A 5% increase in nominal GDP would translate to 15 trillion USD X 5% = $750 billion of required increase in money supply.<br /><br />The question becomes, 'How do you create this $750 billion increase in USD money supply'? By the way, the Euro has approximately the same requirement. The two ways that are being used are fractional reserves on bank lending and Quantitative Easing (QE). When I was young and I first learned about this issue, I definitely didn't like fractional reserves because the unavoidable financial benefit to printing money accrued to the owners of banks and QE was not significant at the time. My thought was that the Federal Reserve would take the amount that money supply needed to increase and divide it by the number of adults. They would create new money and send it to all adult citizens equally. With these numbers, that would be a check for $2,885 to every adult. That is somewhat like the 'stimulus checks' that Americans periodically got through the Pandemic.<br /><br />That, however, is not something likely to happen regularly. It just appears too much like profligate spending, aimed at buying votes. Demagoguery would kill it as an idea. Historically, money has been created by utilizing the fractional reserve rules. As <a href="https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fractionalreservebanking.asp" target="_blank">Investopedia explains</a>, if someone deposits $100 in a bank, the bank must hold 10%, or $10, in reserve. So, on the surface, it appears that they can only lend out $90 of the $100 and to many, that likely appears prudent. However, that is not how it really works. Because money is now electronic, what happens is that the bank can lend out $1,000 and they need to have $100 in reserves, which they do. The net effect is that they pay interest on $100 but receive interest on $1,000. This is why banks really like this tool as the primary driver of monetary policy. That is why we, as citizens, not banks, should not. <br /><br />The fact is, however, that the reserve is typically more than 10%. This is because, historically, the supply of bank deposits is more than 10% of the demand for loans. Consequently, while the bank is allowed to lend out $1,000 on $100 deposits, in reality, it may lend out only $500. Now, suppose interest rates fall, something that the Fed can make happen. The demand for loans may go up to $600. They still have enough deposits to cover that, but they have just created $100 of new money supply. It's actually just a accounting transaction. They book a receivable for an additional $100 and a liability for the same amount. However, they will never need to pay that liability. It is just carried on their balance sheet.<br /><br />Quantitative Easing creates money in a completely different way. The Federal Reserve, by law, cannot bid on Treasury bonds at auction. However, they can buy them in the after market and they do. That just adds a wrinkle that we won't delve into right now. The important part is that the Federal Reserve settles the purchase with created money and puts the bond on their balance sheet as an asset. They have no intention of selling the vast majority of their bonds. When they mature, they buy more. It was done to create money supply. Only if they need to reduce money supply, will they sell them.<br /><br />The bonds carry interest and the Treasury must remit those interest payments to the Federal Reserve on a regular basis. However, because the Federal Reserve is, by statute, limited to 6% return, most of the profits from QE are just remitted back to the Treasury. In 2020, they sent $86.9 billion to the Treasury. With massive increases in interest rates in 2022, that number will likely jump substantially.<br /><br />Money supply, as we see, needs to increase about $800 billion and about 700 billion Euros in order to hit M2 (the most followed measure of money supply) targets. Those are the breakeven amounts to assure economic health. If the governments do not engage in deficit spending, the Central Banks will be forced to buy up existing debt. That might seem good, and it is not bad, but eventually, there will be no debt left to buy. In reality, the amount of money supply increase that is required has become impossible to implement through fractional reserves. While bank deposits are shrinking over the long term, so is the practice of borrowing money from banks. If the system tried to rely entirely upon fractional reserve lending to create money supply, it would likely fail and deflation would become a real risk.<br /><br />While we have focused on the Central Banks buying government debt, they can buy up mortgage backed debt as well. In fact, in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, the Federal Reserve did exactly that with the intent to stimulate a collapsing housing market. Also, there may be times when the Central Bank may need to decrease the money supply and they can do this by selling some of their Treasury bonds.<br /><br />The problem with that, if it is a problem, is that when a Central Bank sells government debt, it takes money out of the system, but the increased supply of debt will likely also increase interest rates. Right now, for example, Federal Reserve could sell about $1.2 trillion of its Treasuries, thereby reducing the money supply by that amount, and assuming that velocity doesn't change, completely eliminate the excess projected inflation for 2022. Why don't they do that? Because, in order to sell them, they would need to discount them and interest rates would go through the roof. Rather, they are projecting Quantitative Tightening of about $95 billion per month. That is, in theory, just about enough to compensate for the inflation. However, because interest rates will be going up, lending through fractional reserve will likely decrease taking money out of the system. Also, higher interest rates are a feedback to inflation.<br /><br />I can't emphasize this enough. Economics is far from intuitive and far from simple. The Republicans lie in one direction to encourage you to vote for them and the Democrats lie in a different direction with the same intent. This should definitely not be part of a well functioning democracy, but I have no idea how to fix it. For my subscribers, I try to compensate for this demagoguery, but realistically, my articles are beyond most voters.<br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><u>I keep refining and, hopefully, improving</u></span></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">I am very sensitive to the value of time. I sometimes wonder about public intellectuals who produce 3 hour podcasts that, necessarily involve a whole lot of repetition. That is why I try to limit my newsletter to about a 10 to 15 minute read and concentrate on just the most egregious and/or consequential misrepresentations of the Left and Right media. All of my first three newsletters have contained three short articles. I may, in the future, write longer articles, but usually also limit the number contained in a newsletter. I will not be a slave to this format. If newsletters can be shorter, I will make them so. <br /><br />I continue to work on my books, 1) A Polymathic Subculture, 2) A New Enlightenment: Political Philosophy for the Information Age, 3) The Death Of Capitalism: Economics for the Information Age and 4) The Rise of the Microstate: Geopolitics for the Information Age. I am also working on several white papers that will be available to my subscribers at no extra charge. As with my Newsletter, I am jealous of your time and strive to keep everything as brief as possible but no briefer.<br /><br />Do subscribe if you have not done so already and feel free to share.<br /><br /></span></span><br /><br /><br /></b></p><p><b><br /></b><br /></p>Michael's Resumehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15472400070847709603noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-239620140160681751.post-86811386652222276982022-05-14T05:37:00.000-04:002022-05-14T05:37:36.874-04:00Newsletter 2: Ukraine, Dystopia & Decreasing National Identity<p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b>If you get your news from either the Right silo and/or the Left silo (and you don't have much choice), you are being propagandized at least as much as you are being informed. What to do? Well, you need to cultivate intelligent, erudite, unbiased sources that will correct the most egregious misstatements. I am unaware of any sources, other than myself, who are even trying to do this. The Right silo is noticeably biased and the Left silo is, currently, ridiculously so. There are, of course, smaller, nascent silos around the Singularity and the Gaian movement. <br /><br />That does not mean that all intellectually sophisticated commentators will agree. I recognize that Polymathica represents a nascent silo and, because of that, there are some values bias to it. Consequently, a diversity of points of view can exist within the intellectually sophisticated communities and their expression will, undoubtedly, be worthwhile. </b></span></span><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b> I hope that over time, the activity of independent public intellectual will enjoy success and this will encourage others
who cherish intellectual sophistication over ideology to join me. </b></span></span></b></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b> </b></span></span><br />Right now, I am trying to get followers and supporters for myself. However, my hope is that, with success, we can leverage the resulting network effects to enable other commentators. <br /><br /><u><span style="font-size: large;">Where are the Donbas separatists?<br /></span></u></b></span></span><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>To quickly review, in 2014, the Ukrainian provinces of Lugansk and Donetsk declared independence over a new Ukrainian government intent on joining the EU and NATO. These Eastern provinces have a pronounced pro-Russian flavor to them and their residents overwhelmingly speak Russian. The national government attempted to move into these two provinces and quell the independence movement militarily. The effort was very violent and, at best, a middling success, with occupation of much of the countryside and Mariupol, which became the Provincial Capital after the separatists secured Donetsk.<br /><br />The Ukrainian position is that no part of Donbas should be independent while the separatists and Russia hold the position that all of the two provinces, and perhaps parts of other provinces, should be independent, generally against EU and NATO membership and with more deep ties with Russia. The reality is that, prior to the recent Russian invasion, the separatists had control of much of the Donbas, but Ukraine held much of it, too. Now, Russia has entered Ukraine, primarily in the Donbas, with a substantial military force. Their stated goal is to secure all of Lugansk and Donetsk provinces for the separatists and recognize them as independent nations. Both the Left and Right silos (of the West) have been reporting that Putin's actual goal is to move westward and annex as much of Eastern Europe as possible.<br /><br />Putin has stated that his only interest is in Eastern Ukraine. He is not being taken at his word, because, in the past, Hitler did, in fact, state that Germany only wanted to annex a portion of Czechoslovakia. An agreement was signed and Prime Minister Chamberlain declared 'peace in our time'. Of course, it proved to be a pretext and Hitler went much further. Is this the case for Putin? It is impossible to tell for certain, but we do have some inferential evidence to suggest not.<br /><br />The curious matter is, however, that the Donbassian separatists have somehow magically disappeared from both the Left silo and Right silo narratives. After putting up a fierce fight, they apparently all went home secure in the knowledge that the Russians have it handled. We know that prior to Russia's military incursion, the separatists did attack Mariupol several times but were unable to capture it. <br /><br />This is an example of ways in which we know that we are getting a narrative rather than fair reporting. There are logical holes in the stories we are being told. On all sides, the Western politicians and press are reporting this conflict as Russia invading Ukraine without purpose and to the universal condemnation of all Ukrainians. However, there was no battle for Donetsk or Lugansk reported. Does that mean that the Russians were invited in by the separatists? While we can't conclude that with certainty, the absence of reporting means it would be a reasonable conclusion. In other words, in truth, this is a civil war that Russia has entered on the side of the separatists and NATO is supporting on the side of the central government with resources, weaponry and intelligence, but not with direct military intervention. I believe that the separatists are not being mentioned because accurate reporting would introduce a degree of moral ambiguity that the Western powers, government and press alike, don't want.<br /><br />As the Western governments and press obfuscate with regard to the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, a more global issue is not being addressed. To do so would highlight a philosophical issue that they want ignored. Crimea and now the Donbas do not want to be part of Ukraine if Ukraine's goal is to join the EU and NATO. However, they are a part of a larger trend. A portion of Moldova has declared independence, there was two years of war that, because of Russian protection, ended in a stalemate. The Northern portion of Cyprus is predominantly Turkish while the Southern portion is Greek. A defacto division has existed for 50 years without resolution. In 2017, pro-independence parties took control of the Catalonian provincial legislature and declared independence from Spain. The leaders were charged with crimes and they fled the country. Apparently, Catalonians wanted independence but weren't willing to fight for it.<br /><br />The fundamental question is whether the Westphalian model of nation states, which generally requires that other nations stay out of the internal affairs of other nations, allows nations to, intermittently, force minorities to remain against their wills. Does the Westphalian model require other nation states to not recognize any seceding community? Is that interpretation consistent with a 'liberal' nation. Obviously, between South Ossetia, Crimea, Donbas and Transnistria, Russia doesn't think so. In nearly all situations, what I call EUNA (EU and North America) does believe so. While they speak out against a few situations save for the situation in the former Yugoslavia, which NATO supported and recognized the many breakaway republics and even bombed Belgrade over Kosovo independence, it is generally accepted that it is consistent with the Westphalian model and liberal democracies, to make secession illegal and to use force to stop it.<br /><br />This is extremely important because the global explosion of unregulated communication channels are leading to an era in which many communities will resist the dictates of larger governments. This is certainly being seen in the U.S. where States are blatantly disregarding national laws, policies and regulations. The war over Donbas will end, one way or the other. But, if the underlying principle of independence is not resolved, the world is going to become a very violent place.<br /><br /></b></span></span><u><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b>Dystopia or Exponential Growth or Something Else?<br /></b></span></span></u><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;">You may have noticed that the majority of the Liberal Press are glass half empty kind of guys and that the Conservative Press generally has a glass half full kind of outlook. I, of course, except those cultural issues that they consider to be evidence of Western decline. There is, however, the Singularitarian Press that will try to sell you on unlimited scientific, technological and economic exponential growth. It began with Ray Kurzweil, with his 2005 book, 'The Singularity is Near'. His argument was that growth occurs exponentially and consequently, over time, measures of economics, technology, life expectancy, etc. will approach infinity. From this, he concluded that civilization would reach a 'singularity', which occurs when a mathematical function approaches infinity in one of its variables. He predicted it, originally, to be an event around 2045. Because singularities are approached but never reached, there certainly was an inherent contradiction in his message.<br /><br /></span></b></span></span></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiARsNJiNQB-Zx7LY81Rh-3z8NpnfNAR_BWWYhV1Z7gutR3uhOVhjEcPeuEZx-d6DV-SG1-q5QUE2Zg85rquCIHPkRoK0t_1SFpL0uEG4jMp6B9rCJo2REG4oqn9ZKliviU6O7MLIWrUA6u6kh-92K6AWwoYf1_rCcdKI-mbInSLZCcXbw6iHazo15m/s1700/Exponential%20Growth.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="760" data-original-width="1700" height="143" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiARsNJiNQB-Zx7LY81Rh-3z8NpnfNAR_BWWYhV1Z7gutR3uhOVhjEcPeuEZx-d6DV-SG1-q5QUE2Zg85rquCIHPkRoK0t_1SFpL0uEG4jMp6B9rCJo2REG4oqn9ZKliviU6O7MLIWrUA6u6kh-92K6AWwoYf1_rCcdKI-mbInSLZCcXbw6iHazo15m/s320/Exponential%20Growth.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Exponential Growth</td></tr></tbody></table><span style="font-size: large;"><b></b></span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></b></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b>While many people accept the threats of climate change, nuclear war, population bomb, resource exhaustion, etc. they really don't behave as if they believe any of them will happen, at least not in their lifetime. However, they don't really believe the Singularitarians either. They are accused to believing that tomorrow will be like today, only more so. This can be described as a linear growth world view. However, that doesn't appear to be exactly true. For example, for the approximately 115 years of the High Industrial Age, say from 1875 to 1990, Real GDP per Capita grew at the rate of 2.1% per year. However, if you tell the typical person that in 115 years, Real GDP per Capita will be $619,615, they won't really believe it. In reality, they subscribe to a diminishing return model as below.<br /><br /></b><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjv24Keu-dKhAFa9UpEOKgJ_Z3nRK50S0K_85R6d7HyXBmfJ9wxZ-wfAhff8Yj-SFdjYDy1-x2w1HUbHbYd-dYDyy_q2s68_lmcM1Eo4eVN0WfnmVgJozTxqg9fQuR2raXIVmd4Ps-CUVwYQBXY4dRY1bcd6YfQtFWmIy-QBD9phpiKqIaKkufHNz8A/s269/Equations%20(2).png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="247" data-original-width="269" height="247" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjv24Keu-dKhAFa9UpEOKgJ_Z3nRK50S0K_85R6d7HyXBmfJ9wxZ-wfAhff8Yj-SFdjYDy1-x2w1HUbHbYd-dYDyy_q2s68_lmcM1Eo4eVN0WfnmVgJozTxqg9fQuR2raXIVmd4Ps-CUVwYQBXY4dRY1bcd6YfQtFWmIy-QBD9phpiKqIaKkufHNz8A/s1600/Equations%20(2).png" width="269" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Diminishing Returns<br /></td></tr></tbody></table></span><b> </b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span><b>Futurists and Economists have studied the nature of change as it has taken place throughout history. What they have discovered is that almost invariably, change follows what is called a sigmoidal function. The best known one is the logistic function, better known as the S-curve. However, there are many varieties of sigmoidal functions. They all share the characteristic of growing exponentially at the start, but then there is a point of inflection turning the curve into something like the diminishing return function. So, the typical person's world view can be described as, 'Things changed quickly in the past, but will probably calm down going forward'. In other words, their assumption is that the world is at the point of inflection. While not always correct, it is less stupid that the Singularitarian world view. The real question is, are we at the point of inflection. Of course, until the point of inflection is reached we can't fully know if we are at X=-4, X=0 or X=4. When it comes to computer technology, it is becoming clear that X>0. With regard to anti-aging, It is tempting to conclude that we are lat X<0, but we really can't know.</b></span></span></span><br /></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img class="rms_img" data-bm="44" data-priority="2" data-src-hq="/th?id=ODL.eca4f710d9198d99328d32236819ec73&w=298&h=204&c=12&rs=1&qlt=99&pcl=faf9f7&o=6&dpr=1.03&pid=13.1" height="204" id="emb21CED74C1" role="presentation" src="https://www.bing.com/th?id=ODL.eca4f710d9198d99328d32236819ec73&w=298&h=204&c=12&rs=1&qlt=99&pcl=faf9f7&o=6&dpr=1.03&pid=13.1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" width="298" /></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The Logistical form of a Sigmoidal Curve<br /></td></tr></tbody></table><p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></b></span></span></span></b></span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;">This article is somewhat different than most, that are clearly addressing a specific contemporary issue. This one looks at a general bias in the Right silo, the Left silo and various other more nascent silos, such as Singularitarian and Transhumanism. Nearly all news stories will either express or imply a view of the future based upon the expected profile of change.<br /><br />For example, I believe that growth in affluence over the next century will be consistent with X<<</span></b></span></span></span></b></span></span><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;">0. I do not do so based upon statistical trends but rather due to a review of robotics and artificial intelligence. It militates for the perspective that we are, essentially, at the beginning of another explosion of real GDP per capita. It is almost certainly a trend that will be sigmoidal and will reach an inflection point and approach an asymptote. </span></b></span></span></span></b></span></span><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;">That, however, is a very complex issue that I will address in an upcoming book, 'The Death of Capitalism'. <br /><br /><u><span style="font-size: large;">A Growing Multinational Global Population</span></u></span></b></span></span></span></b></span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>The U.S. State Department estimates that between three million and six million Americans (between 1% and 2%) are living abroad. Though not at a rate as high as the U.S., nearly all developed countries have substantial populations that have more or less permanently left their home country. Interestingly, one study estimated that there are <a href="https://www.projectuntethered.com/digital-nomad-statistics/" target="_blank">over 15 million Digital Nomads,</a> just one category of expat, and that will likely increase dramatically over the next few decades.<br /><br />I belong to this group of expats, having left the U.S., my country of birth, in 2017 with no intention of returning for more than visits. I am not sure that I really qualify as either a traditional expat or as a Digital Nomad. My ultimate goal is to maintain a summer home and a winter home. At present, I have only my summer home in Tirana, Albania, but this winter I am planning to tour Southeast Asia, looking for a winter home. I am, in reality, a person with no national identity. Everywhere I go, I am just visiting. To a degree that is a function of identifying as a Polymathican. Like the Jews before 1949, I am without a home country.<br /><br />I have a blog, The Nomadic Polymath and a private Facebook group in which I discuss my anational lifestyle in greater detail. Here, my point is more limited but still an important one. A growing number of people are losing not just a feeling of patriotism, but a sense of national identity, itself. While this is a threat to the Westphalian model, an increasing number of countries are enabling the anational lifestyle in the form of 'Digital Nomad visas'. Albania is one of them which has played a part in my choice of it as my summer 'Base of Operations'. <br /><br />At its inception, and still in the minds of many, this trend of Digital Nomads is viewed as a behavior of young people, similar to the <a href="https://www.regencyhistory.net/2013/04/the-grand-tour.html#:~:text=The%20Grand%20Tour%20was%20a%20period%20of%20foreign,19th%20century%20after%20peace%20was%20restored%20in%20Europe." target="_blank">Grand Tour</a> undertaken by young upper class men from 17th through 19th Century. However, today, it is undertaken by young people of every class. They throw a change of clothes and a laptop in a backpack and take off to exotic places, working online. It is viewed by most people as a phase of life rather than as a permanent lifestyle choice. There is truth to that; perpetual travel does, for most people, get old after a year or two.<br /><br />However, that view of the anational or multinational person as a young, economically marginalized individual is being replaced by more affluent people who are simply exploring the market of residential locations and choosing two or more of them. Often, as with me, my home country didn't finish at the top. The cost of living is too high and the regulations, especially regarding income taxes, are just too onerous. The popularity of this life choice for more affluent and mature people is demonstrated by the success of Andrew Henderson, The Nomad Capitalist, who consults to 'seven and eight figure entrepreneurs' and whose YouTube channel has more than a half million subscribers. As high value added, location independent productive opportunities explode, the affluent multinational or anational families will explode along with it.<br /><br />This is already 'a thing', though, for some reason it is flying beneath the radar. I am aware of many very affluent Europeans who winter in Dubai and summer on the Mediterranean. Doing this, there are a surprising number of British millionaires who have not been 'home' in years. I lived for six years in Sunny Isles Beach, Florida, where people from all over the world come to their seaside condo for the winter. <br /><br />The world looks quite different if, in the future, many, perhaps most, of the economically and socially enabled families don't have a strong tie to any single nation. When Gavin Newsom, governor of California, was asked about people leaving his state, his response was 'Where are they going to go'? There is a belief among many that people are anchored to the nation of their birth and that being an American or a Russian or a Korean is an immutable, and central, trait of the individual. However, current trends and cultural evolutionary forces militates against that view. <br /><br />I, like many of the 'Nomad Capitalists' have a small enterprise that I hope will grow into something of moderate size over time. The old paradigm was that this innovative energy was being expended, in part, for the benefit of the U.S. After all, I am an American. However, it is not. The U.S. is certainly going to survive the loss of my productive activities. However, when the absence of national identity aggregates into millions of similar anationals and multinationals, it becomes the 'death of a thousand cuts' for the Westphalian model. <br /><br />For me, and for a growing number of anationals and multinationalists, it is not that I have left the U.S. in favor of a different country. I have more or less abandoned the concept of national identity, entirely. When this is normative for upper middle and upper class people, as it may well become, the current system begins to fail. The view of history as a series of interactions between sovereign states will necessarily wane. It doesn't mean an end to group identity. That is inherent in the human psyche. It just won't be tied to a specific territory. I do believe that people will aggregate in subcultural enclaves or microstates. But, that is a book sized discussion, and I will write that book.<br /></b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><u><span style="font-size: large;">The Emergence of the Polymathic Content Creator</span></u></span></b></span></span></span></b></span></span></p><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;">Recently, there was a move among the ultra-leftists to boycott Twitter in response to its takeover by Elon Musk. That is self defeating. The value of Twitter was that it was a social media platform under strong Leftist control. It provided them with a captive amount of network effects. The use of network effects can be understood by a historical review of regional malls. When they first emerged many retailers balked at locating so near so many competitors. This was one of the first cases that network effects was demonstrated. Essentially, incidental walk-by traffic increased sales by much more than competition reduced it.<br /><br />The same will be true with what is currently Polymaths.Locals.com I have enabled the 'tips' function there so that people can financially reward you if you post an article. Eventually, we will transfer the membership to our own site. My readers will walk by your content and your content consumers will wander by my content. As long as the average person at our Polymaths site consumes content from more than one content creator, we all win.<br /><br />So, please, please, PLEASE, if you have not, register at Polymaths.Locals.com and/or MichaelWFerguson.Substack.com and do share. It benefits me, yes, but over the long term, it benefits all of us.<br /><br /></span></b></span></span><br /><br /><br /></span></b></span></span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b></b></span></span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></b></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></b></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></b></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></b></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /><br /><br /></span></b></span><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"></span></span></p>Michael's Resumehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15472400070847709603noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-239620140160681751.post-26214176652850702132022-05-08T02:13:00.002-04:002022-05-08T02:13:36.189-04:00Newsletter 1: A few points you absolutely need to know<p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">The Internet is so overwhelmed with content that one cannot consume more than a tiny fraction of it. That, generally, is not a problem because most of it is duplicative. Choose your favorite content creator to present you with the standard Right and/or the standard Left narrative. My goal is not to provide you with X number of words or Y minutes of video per time period. Rather, my goal is to correct the most egregious misstatements within the Right and Left narratives. Both sides 'lie to you for your own good'. I don't condone that, especially because they get it wrong so often.<br /><br />So, here are a few corrections of the most important current issues that are being reported and discussed. </span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><u><span style="font-size: large;">The Truth about Inflation</span></u></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">The U.S. Federal Reserve needs to print money - approximately 800 billion USD of it per year. Parenthetically, the Eurozone needs to print about the same amount of Euros. The Fed can do so directly by buying Treasuries with created money. Or it can do it indirectly by lowering interest rates that are internal to the banking system. This, usually, increases credit demand and allows the member banks (JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, etc.) to loan more money using fractional reserves and thus they create more money that way. The first method is a scalpel and because excess profits are returned to the Treasury, this method benefits the taxpayer. The second is a blunt instrument that enriches the owners of banks. The Federal Reserve has absolutely <i>needed</i> to increase the money supply in order to avoid the economic disasters that could have resulted from, first, the 2008 financial meltdown and, second, the forced closure of businesses during the 2020-2021 pandemic. Since it absolutely had to be sure that the strategy worked, they resorted to Quantitative Easing (QE) or the buying of Treasuries to immediately and reliably infused money into the system.<br /><br />Because of this, the Federal Reserve now holds about 9 trillion USD of Treasuries. Because of this QE, the crises were, indeed, mitigated if not totally avoided. However, now all that extra money in circulation is causing massive inflation. The Federal Reserve can actually kill this inflation totally and completely dead by selling some (about 2 trillion USD) of its Treasuries. Why don't they do that? Well, they are planning on it, actually. They just announced that they are going to start selling 98 billion USD of Treasuries per month. However, while the Federal Reserve can effectively, either lower the inflation rate or interest rates through, Quantitative Easing or Tightening, they can't simultaneously affect both in a positive direction. The best they can do is attempt to balance inflation and interest rates. They have also announced that they are going to increase interest rates, right now by 50 basis points (0.5%) and likely more later. <br /><br />Just the signaling of rate increases has caused the Treasury interest rates to increase. Since ten year Treasuries are the best predictor of all interest rates, including your credit card debt and mortgage, in isolation, this is not a good thing. If they don't sell Treasuries, what is called Quantitative Tightening, inflation will continue and perhaps increase. Since there is a lag between inflation and wage increases, higher inflation is painful to most voters. So, in theory anyway, the Fed will try to balance the two, interest rates and inflation, in order to minimize the overall negative effect to the economy and to soothe political unrest.</span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">In the long run the basic challenge is this. The Federal Reserve needs to increase money supply by about 800 billion USD per year in order to maintain a healthy, growing, low inflation economy. However, the structural deficit is about 1.5 trillion USD per year. The Federal Reserve does not have the tools to resolve that 700 billion USD imbalance. That must be done by Congress and their only tools are to either increase tax revenue or decrease spending. The correct solution would probably to do a bit of each. However, both are politically inexpedient and so the problem is left unsolved and both narratives are rife with lies. In other words, both interest rates and inflation will likely go up to a painful level.<br /><br />Reasonable people can disagree about the extent to which taxes should be increased or spending should be decreased. But in combination, they can be used to balance the scales. However, ignoring the problem simply won't make it go away. If the problem is ignored, EUNA (this is happening in the Eurozone and U.K. as well) will walk blindly into extreme economic hardship. Over time high inflation and high interest rates will result in a recession due to insufficient demand side. <br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><u>Climate Sensitivity, again.</u></span></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">From time to time I discuss the Climate Sensitivity implicit in the models you hear about. Changes in Solar output and albedo should be modeled, but generally aren't. Typically, models input an increase in atmCO2 and the assumed climate sensitivity and that drives the answer. While the IPCC shows all sorts of assumptions on CO2 output and the resultant atmCO2 levels, in fact ever since we have had accurate measures, atmCO2 has been increasing at a remarkably constant rate of 0.45% per year. There have been all sorts of schemes, treaties and protocols, etc. but the rate of increase has remained unchanged. That really leaves the uncertainty in the assumed climate sensitivity. Know it and you know how much the Earth will warm (given flat solar output and no change in Earth's albedo).<br /><br />In the IPCC AR5, the range for Climate Sensitivity was 1.5C to 4.5C. In the latest IPCC AR6, the range was narrowed to 2.5C to 4.0C. This implies an increase in Earth's temperature by 2100 of 1.5C to 3.0C. Oddly, however, the Executive Summary goes on and on about temperatures that are up to 5C higher than today. How do they manage this? By assuming a much higher rate of increase in atmCO2. While that is not impossible, it is highly implausible. If one studies the internal forces that are responsible for the 0.45% per year increase and one wanted to argue for a change in the historical rate, one would argue that it will likely begin to decrease about mid-century, with the net carbon cycle reaching balance around the end of the 21st Century or a bit before.<br /><br />Once the argument over the proper value of Climate Sensitivity is resolved, it is likely that a controversy will arise over the rate of atmCO2 increase. There needs to be attention paid to the effects of albedo, as well. However, right now, the argument is over Climate Sensitivity.<br /><br />Peer reviewed papers describing research on Climate Sensitivity are published nearly every day and I read at least the Abstracts of all of them. I did write about one such paper a few weeks back, but generally I do not. First, not all of them are very compelling and second, many just aren't going to be technically accessible to most Polymathicans. However, I develop a 'working hypothesis' on the likely value of Climate Sensitivity from all of the published information and my estimate has remained rather persistently between 2.0C and 2.5C. In other words, I was within the IPCC AR5 published range, but I am now outside of the IPCC AR6 range.<br /><br />Recently I said that the AR6 is the first report by IPCC that is overtly partisan. One of the reasons that I say this is that the increase of the lower limit to 2.5 flies in the face of much of the published research. In fact, like the one to which I provided a linked, most research is coming to a consensus in the 2.0C to 2.5C range.<br /><br />What does this mean? It means that, based upon best evidence, that is the range of Climate Sensitivity and, while it will result in a warmer planet, it does not support any catastrophic scenarios. The IPCC AR6 Executive Summary, without stating it, does imply a climate catastrophe that just isn't easily supported by the evidence. IPCC, in the immortal words of Taylor Swift, 'You Need to Calm Down'. We are, collectively, allowing ourselves to be convinced of the advisability of a cure that is actually worse than the disease.<br /><br /><u><span style="font-size: large;">On Roe v Wade</span></u></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: medium;">A draft opinion on a SCOTUS pending case on Roe v Wade was leaked and has overcome much of the Internet and the Right and Left silo. Ruth Bader Ginsburg's assessment that the decision was flawed was correct, though very unpopular on the Left. SCOTUS does not rule on what laws should be enforced. It rules on the constitutionality of State and Federal laws and regulations. It also, from time to time rules on disputes between States and between a State and the Federal government. Clearly, the Constitution makes no mention of abortion which implies that it is a matter to be determined by the individual States. But, of course, there are complicating issues. <br /><br />Can a right to an abortion be inferred by the existing Constitutional provisions? This is what Roe v Wade attempted to do, through the novel interpretation of the 4th and 14th amendments. While RBG is favor legal abortions, she could not support the justification within Roe v. wade. This, however, does not mean that the Constitution has no applicability to the issue. However, it is limited and, as is the case with all termination of life, the description and penalties revolving around the taking of a citizen's life is a matter for the States. However, the rules governing whether any one individual is a citizen is a matter for the Constitution and it speaks directly to it. However, it does not do so in a way that directly informs us on abortion. <br /><br />However, clearly, if at any point it the gestational period a fetus becomes a citizen, it will enjoy the rights of a citizen. Also, clearly, removing it from a female's womb prematurely in a manner that unnecessarily ends its viability would be against its Constitutional rights. By practice, a person is recognized as a citizen when a birth certificate is issued. However, a reasonable modification to that would be that the Constitutional rights of a fetus should be recognized when it COULD be issued by its premature and intentional birthing. To do otherwise leads to some logical contradictions.<br /><br />Suppose, as an example, a female is 24 weeks pregnant and she is diagnosed with cancer. She needs immediate treatment, but the treatment would kill the fetus. Obviously, she wants the baby but she also wants to live. So, her medical team, concluding that the fetus is viable, removes the fetus and places the baby in the neonatal ICU where it survives. It, of course, has Constitutional rights as of the date of removal. There is a clear difficulty in that a 24 week old fetus that could be removed and survive will have Constitutional rights in this case, but not in another because of the condition and desires of the mother? That makes no sense. If a 24 week pregnancy results in a viable fetus, it either has Constitutional protections or it doesn't. To justify the termination of a viable fetus would require the determination that in the first case, the baby has no Constitutional protection until some set time after its birth.<br /><br />So, if, in fact, the draft opinion is rendered in more or less the leaked form, the decision on abortion will, for the most part, be returned to the States. That is certainly broadly consistent with the general tenor of the Constitution. Like most of Europe, the States are signalling that they will allow an abortion on request until between 12 weeks to 15 weeks. There are exceptions. Poland does not allow elective abortions. Florida just passed a law allowing abortions to 12 weeks, reduced from the current 24 weeks. The only States affected are those who currently allow abortion on demand later in pregnancy. <br /><br />I do not actually favor limiting pre-viability abortions for a number of reasons. The major one has to do with the introduction of highly ambiguous reasoning. Every State that limits abortions to 12 weeks to 15 weeks must make some sort of exception for females whose life is threatened by continuation of the pregnancy. However, what constitutes a life threatened, while clear in many cases, is not so clear in others. What about the claim that a continued pregnancy would threaten the females life via an increased risk of suicide? If there were a valid logic to reducing the limit to 12 weeks to 15 weeks, then some ambiguity to what constitutes a threat could be tolerated. This, however, is my personal assessment and as a matter of law, in the U.S. where laws are often issued by States but reviewed by SCOTUS, there is probably no legal justification for it.<br /></span></span></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><u><span style="font-size: large;">An Addendum</span></u></span></span></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: medium;">I very much want there to be a forum by which more intellectually sophisticated content can be created, distributed and discussed. However, at the same time, I recognize that there is far too much content out there already. So, I want to be as efficient as possible. I am settling in to a provisional system where I publish a weekly Newsletter on Substack and on Locals where, on Locals, the ultimate objective is to create a community of Polymathicans or intellectually sophisticated people.<br /><br />I want to be the Mr. Ed of social media. <br /></span></span></span></span></b><br /><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span></span></span></span></span></span></b></p><div class="ujudUb"><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>People yakkity-yak a streak</span><br /><span>And waste your time of day,</span><br /><span>but Mister Ed will never speak</span><br /><span>Unless he has something to say!<br /><br />That means that my newsletter, while weekly, might be short or long depending upon how much I have to say. Most and podcasters throw out one to three hours of content per day. So, for financial reasons, they must have that much to say. Since they don't, they repeat themselves a whole lot. I won't do that. I repeat but only as is absolutely necessary.<br /><br />As I said, I am not here to say what is already being said, over and over, elsewhere. If someone is saying something important, I will simply attach a link. There is no reason for me to waste time saying it again.<br /><br />Please encourage people to join Polymaths.Locals.com or MichaelWFerguson.Substack. This activity is only financially justified if I have at least 10K paid subscribers and I am nowhere near that. <br /></span></span></span></span></span></b></div><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span><br /></span><u><span style="font-size: large;"></span></u><br /></span></span></b><p></p>Michael's Resumehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15472400070847709603noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-239620140160681751.post-74809051153078513992022-04-09T09:23:00.003-04:002022-04-09T09:24:44.189-04:00Yes, there is free money and it belongs to you<p> <b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">A very good example of why populism doesn't work has to do with the U.S. Federal Budget (this also applies to the Eurozone and most of unaffiliated EUNA) and the common populist position for a balanced budget. The common is line is that families know that they must balance their budgets and so does the Federal government. Say a family's income doubles. They will likely move to a bigger house, taking on a bigger mortgage, buy newer and better cars, taking on car loans. So, in that year, they will actually spend more than they earn through borrowing and they will take on more debt. It is also not a true statement because families do not have control of the currency and, thus, have none of the benefits that can be derived from managing the money supply.<br /><br />The central government, on the other hand, does have a hand in creating money supply. Generally, the money supply needs to be increased by Real GDP + Inflation target divided by money velocity. This has traditionally been done through fractional reserve lending by banks. In other words, the banks only need to hold 10% of what they lend in the form of various reserves. Another way of looking at that is that the banks are allowed to loan a deposit out ten times and they do this by creating more money in circulation. The profit from doing that accrues to the bank and beneficially to their stockholders.<br /><br />The Federal Reserve (or other National Banks) does this through manipulating the member banks' cost of money. The logic is that if the central bank lowers interest rates to their member banks, the member banks can lower the interest rates to their customers. From this, it is assumed that the demand for loans will increase and the banks will create more money. It is, however, an imprecise tool. It is conceivable, and in fact has happened, that the central bank will lower interest rates and private borrowers, for other reasons, will decide to deleverage.<br /><br />This happened during the 2008 financial crisis. Much of this 'deleveraging' was in the form of corporations going bankrupt and massive mortgage defaults. In the face of this massive forced deleveraging, lowering interest rates would accomplish very little in stimulating borrowing. So, the central banks had no choice but to infuse money supply into the system or the whole economy would suffer a catastrophic liquidity collapse. They managed to support the money supply by purchasing bonds with created money. This was called Quantitative Easing. It is very effective and very precise. It managed to keep the recession from becoming a depression.<br /><br />In the 21st Century, two things have taken place that render the traditional fractional reserve method of managing money supply even less effective. First, banks are losing much of their business to other institutions. For example, a family's mortgage is generally funded by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or other securitizing organizations. What this means is that the securitizer will bundle a large number of mortgages and then issue bonds with the mortgages as collateral. By some Accounting legerdemain, the mortgages sort of disappear, with the bonds, referred to as derivatives, remaining. Second, businesses that once was a very significant borrower with banks are using a series of other sources of non-equity financing.<br /><br />The 'establishment' tends to demonize QE (as quantitative easing is called), not because it has very good reasons for it, but because the financial industry has become dependent upon fractional reserves as a source of income. However, in large part, it is defending a practice that seems to be dying no matter what they do. <br /><br />One of the major advantages of QE, beyond its effectiveness and precision, is that the profits do not accrue to the member banks, but rather to the U.S. Treasury. In other words, QE kills two birds that we really want dead with one stone. First, Federal deficits are, in essence, free. Yes, the Treasury must pay interest on the debt, but the interest flows right back to it. Second, it is more efficient and effective.<br /><br />A whole lot of research has shown that a small inflation rate is beneficial to the Economy and, thus, the well being of the citizens. Much is made of the dollar losing 90% of its value over the last 70 years. While true, it is also mostly irrelevant. Unless of course, 70 years ago, your grandparents put their life savings under their mattress and your parents, and now you, left it there. Yes, it lost 90% of its purchasing power. However, most people live 'pay check to pay check', which means that between earning a dollar and spending a dollar the loss in purchasing power amounts to a small fraction of 1%. <br /><br />So, if the central bank targets inflation at, say, 2.5% and the economy grows at a real rate of 2.5%, money supply will need to increase by 5%. If money supply is, say, $16 trillion, money supply will need to increase by $800 billion. The central bank does this by buying debt, most commonly, government debt. It should be noted that this is not always the case. The U.S. Federal Reserve has bought debt of the government authorized mortgage securitizers to increase money supply while lowering mortgage rates when compared to other debt instruments.<br /><br />Much has also been made of the very rapid rise in money supply and the demagogues have tried to convince voters that this is unrealized inflation. It may be, but that is unlikely. In February 2020, M2, the most commonly quoted money supply statistic, was at $15,447 trillion. Two years later, in February 2022, it increased to 21,812 trillion. Obviously, the approximately $6.4 trillion increase is much more than the $800 billion X 2 = $1.600 trillion explained in the previous paragraph. Normally, that would spell a very hefty amount of inflation. However, during those two years, the velocity of money fell from about 1.4 to 1.1 and has stayed there since. The Federal Reserve needed to put money into circulation to counteract that drop or substantial deflation would have taken place.<br /><br />If velocity returns to its previous level, money supply will need to be reduced by about $800 billion. This can easily be done by the Federal Reserve selling that many government bonds. If it is sold to domestic investors, it will put upward pressure on interest rates. If it is sold to international investors, it will increase the value of the dollar in Forex markets. Clearly, there is $4 trillion of money supply not accounted for ($6.4 gross increase - $1.6 trillion 'earned' increase - $800 billion of velocity). Where is the rest? Most of it is the result of increased QE. In other words, it is sitting on the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve. <span> If that is not going to turn into inflation, and it will be a total of $4 trillion / $21.8 trillion = 18%, the Federal Reserve will need to sell $4 trillion of its government bonds. That will ease inflation but increase interest rates. That results in a careful balancing.<br /><br />As stated earlier, M2 needs to be increased by about $800 billion per year in order for the Federal Reserve to hit their inflation target. If this is done by QE, it literally is 'free money', hence the title of the article. Some of it may or may not be done through fractional reserve. However, with the need to increase interest rates, that will not work. So, the Federal Reserve really has no choice but to buy debt in order to reach the goals. This does not need to be Federal debt. It could be, again, debt issued by the mortgage industry, State and municipality debt or corporate debt. It even could buy equity if it so chose. What they buy really isn't as important as the issuing of new money.</span></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span><br />However, and this is the second part of the title, the proceeds from the purchase accrues to you, the tax payer. This logic, that the Federal government can overspend by $800 billion per year and, thereby, either increase spending or lower taxes. If the income explosion that I predict increases Real GDP growth per year by 5% per year, the 'free money' pool will increase to $1.2 trillion. How it should best be spent is a matter of political discussion. However, first it must be recognized as a thing to be discussed. Right now, this piece of Economics is being obfuscated.</span></span></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">The one sentence is a restatement of the title, 'Quantitative Easing creates free money and it belongs to you. What should be done with it?'<br /></span></span></b></p>Michael's Resumehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15472400070847709603noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-239620140160681751.post-7994547018298443102022-03-15T06:52:00.002-04:002022-03-15T06:52:56.986-04:00<p> <span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">I published this in 1999 It was mostly ignored and when it was commented upon, it was ridiculed. </span></span><br /></p><h1></h1><blockquote><h1>What If There Were 2,000 Television Networks? <br /></h1>
<p><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Since its inception, access to television programming has been
restricted. Until the introduction of cable and satellite television,
viewing options were generally limited to three broadcast networks,
Public Television and frequently one local independent station. Because
the Federal government claimed ownership of the airwaves, freedom of
expression was severely restricted through several controlling
mechanisms.</b></span></span></p><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>
</b></span></span><p><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>With the introduction of cable television in the 1980's, the
government lost the power to control programming and shows began to
enter our homes that would have been censored during the broadcast era.
Many people considered much of the cable programming morally,
politically or cultural offensive. When this reached a critical level in
the 1990's, public dialogue began to focus on self-censoring
technologies such as the V-chip.</b></span></span></p><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>
</b></span></span><p><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Although cable television dramatically increased our viewing options,
it was still relatively restricted. First, in order to acquire one of
the multiplexed channels, a network had to present a complete spectrum
of programming. This required large amounts of capital and restricted
access to the marketplace. Second, because of the limited number of
available multiplexed channels, ratings were important and most of the
cable networks chased the same mainstream viewing preferences.</b></span></span></p><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>
</b></span></span><p><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>High speed Internet access will change everything about television.
Currently, there are many competing technologies, however, the edge most
likely will go to systems such as AT&T Broadband that use an
existing multiplexed cable channel. You literally will be watching cable
television, but the source of the signal will be directed through the
Internet. AT&T is positioning itself to be a full-spectrum Internet
supplier, including Internet based television and movies.</b></span></span></p><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>
</b></span></span><p><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>There are some obvious implications of this change in prevailing
technology. One is the 'episode archive'. After its airing, a television
show will be uploaded onto the Network web site for people to view
whenever they want. Advertising rate cards will begin to quote two
rates; one for the initial airing and a 'per view' rate from the
archive. There is no particular reason why the advertisements in the
initial broadcast must be the same as the ones in the Archive version.
In fact, there is no reason why the archive version must contain
advertising at all. For a nominal fee, the viewer can choose to download
a commercial free version.</b></span></span></p><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>
</b></span></span><p><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Western civilization has become change receptive. There are many,
many examples of a new technology moving from 'surprising' to 'old hat'
in just a couple of years. Internet based television will profoundly
change people's viewing habits. The 'broadcast schedule' which has been
an embedded assumption of television from the beginning will disappear.
People will watch a particular television show when it suits their mood,
not when it is being shown. Many people will choose to purchase
commercial free versions which will completely change the way television
is financed and how people become aware of their purchasing options.</b></span></span></p><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>
</b></span></span><p><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>The evolution to Internet based television will also dramatically
modify the role of the Network. Time slot competition will become
meaningless. Prime Time will also lose its significance. Networks can
offer more or less programming than the time slots that have
traditionally been the determinant. Ratings and share, which has driven
so much of the Industry, will no longer be a decision making criteria.
If a show is profitable, it will be made available. The cost of Internet
supplied television will be low, consequently the number of profitable
shows will explode.</b></span></span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><br />Today, we are mostly there. Both Broadcast TV (though mostly delivered through cable) and cable TV is still mostly dominant, but losing ground quickly. Netflix, Hulu, Amazone Prime, HBO, Paramount, Disney+ and others are now the Internet delivered Networks that I envisioned, producing their own content. According to surveys, the majority of people now get their news from the Internet, and this includes many Internet based news networks and independent shows.<br /><br />Often, what I am saying today may seem counterintuitive, even wrong. But, so did this little article 23 years ago. One of my problems as a 'public intellectual' is that I do tend to live 20 years in the future and that is beyond the planning horizon for most people. When they do think about 20 years in the future, it is seriously clouded by propaganda, hopes and fears. Not for me. I have no agenda and my motivation is totally that of curiosity.<br /></b></span></span></p>Michael's Resumehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15472400070847709603noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-239620140160681751.post-12027696094341288372021-11-20T07:40:00.000-05:002021-11-26T05:42:44.044-05:00We Need to Leave Facebook<b>I just was locked out of Facebook for 24 hours over what they considered to be a 'hate speech' comment. I will explain it here for fear that if I tried to explain it on Facebook I would be censored again and be put on a road to permanent banishment.</b><div><b><br></b></div><div><b>Many of my Facebook friends know that I spend much of the year in Albania. One of them commented with a map that showed the mean IQ of the Balkan nations. Albania was shown on the map as 89. I confessed that, yes, if you go to Albania you will notice that, as a group, they are slow on the uptake. It isn't a huge difference. Americans have a mental age of about 15, on average, and Albanians average a mental age of 13.5. That is what got me in trouble for stating that one group is inferior to others. </b></div><div><b><br></b></div><div><b>The question is whether the 10 point difference is 1) an artifact of the test, i.e. cultural unfairness, 2) the result of environmental differences, or 3) the result of actual differences in allelic frequencies, i.e. genetic.</b></div><div><b><br></b></div><div><b>My response related to the Flynn Effect. Essentially, during the 20th Century, IQs in Western countries increased at the rate of about 2 points per decade. The reason for this is controversial. I explain it as being essentially the same as if a population was subjected to increasing emphasis on exercise. Over time the population would get stronger. Modern technological society is cognitively more challenging than the preceding agricultural society. Therefore, as a country emerges into the tecnological age, the increasing 'cognitive exercise' will result in higher IQs.</b></div><div><b><br></b></div><div><b>Until recently, Albania has been a technologically backward nation. The 10 point lower IQ in Albania could be explained as a result of it being about 50 years behind in technological development.</b></div><div><b><br></b></div><div><b>That does not mean that cultural unfairness and genetics don't play a role. For example, if 10 year olds in a technologically advanced country and 10 year olds in an undeveloped country are both given IQ tests, the first group, when asked to complete a number progression will be somewhat practiced with them while the second group may find the problem completely novel. That puts them at a disadvantage.</b></div><div><b><br></b></div><div><b>There has been an enormous controversy over whether there is a genetic component to the IQ differences between 'races' and nationalities. The controversy astonishes me. Of course there is. Or, more properly stated, it would be perplexing if there wasn't.</b></div><div><b><br></b></div><div><b>Until recently, populations were primarily isolated from each other. We see clear and obvious differences in things like skin pigmentation, hair and eye color, etc. However, there are many more subtle genetic differences. Various populations have different immune systems, different enzyme profiles, etc. When I took Population Genetics, one of our more advanced problems was to take a number of allelic frequencies for Europeans, West Africans and African Americans and from this information estimate what percent of African Americans' genetic heritage comes from Europe. Put simply the question was, "How white is the average American black"?</b></div><div><b><br></b></div><div><b>With just a little reflection, since IQ differences are 70% genetically determined, one would assume that these groups, and others, have substantial differences in allelic frequencies at gene sites that affect IQ. The notion that, somehow, they all cancel out and result in the same genetic IQ is implausible in the extreme.</b></div><div><b><br></b></div><div><b>Facebook censorship is based upon a progressive world view that, despite the claims of 'following the science', is not well supported by the evidence. For example, while human industrial activity is increasing atmospheric CO2 and thereby contributing to higher mean global temperatures, the claim that this constitutes an existential threat to humanity is difficult to support. I suspect that is only a matter of time before that claim will be censored on Facebook.</b></div><div><b><br></b></div><div><b>So, while personal updates are fine on Facebook, serious posts and the ensuing discussions are definitely not fine. To clarify I don't subscribe to much of the conservative world view as well. But at Polymaths.Locals.com I don't get censored for it. And neither will you.</b></div><div><b><br></b></div><div><b>Locals.com is far from a perfect social media platform. However, it is likely the best available right now. So, please register. Right now, it's mostly me, but the intention is to grow it to more contributing Polymaths in the future.</b></div><div><b><br></b></div><div><b><br></b></div><div><b><br></b></div>Michael's Resumehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15472400070847709603noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-239620140160681751.post-55022524235837031022021-10-28T07:20:00.000-04:002021-10-28T07:20:12.623-04:00Without Bayes, You Are Easily Tricked<b>Suppose 1% of the population has COVID. The COVID test is 99% accurate. You are going to travel internationally and a negative PCR (99% accurate) test is required. Your test is positive. What is the probability that you have COVID? Most people will answer 99%. After all, the test is 99% accurate. The correct answer is 50%. </b><div><b><br></b></div><div><b>This is how it works. Suppose 1,000,000 people selected at random are tested. 1% have COVID so, in this thought experiment, there are 10,000 with it. Since the test is 99% accurate, 9,900 will test positive. 990,000 do not have COVID, but because the test is 99% accurate, 1% or 9,900 will test positive, anyway. So, in total, 19,800 will test positive and half of those do not have the disease.</b></div><div><br></div><div><b>This is Bayesian probability and is properly used when there are prior relavent probabilities. Withhout training, people are really very bad at properly assessing these situations. Because of this it can and is used to trick people, without lies. You will be told that 10,000 people tested positive for COVID and that the test is 99% accurate. They did not lie. But you will likely walk away with the impression that the 10,000 estimate is very close to reality. You now know that it may be very wrong.</b></div><div><br></div><div><b>This was highlighted when the 'Monte Hall Problem' was widely published. It goes like this. A game show host shows you three doors and tells you that there is a donkey behind two doors and a brand new car behind the third one. He tells you that you may have what is behind the door you select. Nearly everyone understands that they have ⅓ chance of getting a car.</b></div><div><b><br></b></div><div><b>However, rather than showing you what you won, the gameshow host opens one of the doors that you didn't choose to expose a donkey. He then tells you that you can stay with the door you selected or switch. The question is, 'should you stay or switch"?</b></div><div><b><br></b></div><div><b>The vast majority of people say it doesn't matter. When I first heard this problem, I immediately said, "You switch, of course", which is the correct answer. I knew the correct answer because I know Bayesian Probability. What is interesting is thàt most people didn't believe the answer even when it was explained to them.</b></div><div><b><br></b></div><div><b>The best way to explain the answer is like this. There was a ⅓ chance you selected a car and a ⅔ chance that you didn't. When </b><b>the game show host opened one of the doors, the ⅔ chance that you didn't choose a car resides in just the one door. You should switch to it.</b></div><div><b><br></b></div><div><b>Returning to the issue of COVID, in order to assess the meaning of reported statistics, the person conversant in Bayesian Probability will understand that without two values, the positivity rate and the test accuracy, the reported number may or may not be reliable.</b></div><div><b><br></b></div><div><b>Let's take a look at a recent day for U.S. reported numbers. The number of tests reported was 1,494,000 and the reported cases was 93,000. This is a positivity rate of 6.28%. So, if the accuracy of the tests is 93.6%, all reported cases would be false positives.</b></div><div><b><br></b></div><div><b>Several studies have been undertaken and various tests and testing protocols have found a wide variety of results, so the mix of tests used is very imoortant. Not surprisingly, people who had symptoms and tested positive were much more likely to have the disease. This tells us that the trend toward testing asymptomatic people with rapid tests (as happens with travel or entrance requirement testing) means that most of the reported cases may be false positives.</b></div><div><b><br></b></div><div><b>Another outgrowth of Bayes is how you react to a positive test result. If the reported posivity rate in your locale is low you understand that, in spite of the 99% accuracy, your positive result is likely to be false. So, you will know to take the test again. The probability of a negative second result is high. </b></div><div><b><br></b></div><div><b>The belief is that statistcs lie. They don't. However, your ignorance of statistics can lead you to misinterpret the stastistcs that are presented to you. Politicians, 'the news' and other charlatans can take advantage of this to mislead you. I argue that a mandatory course on 'Everyday Statistics' should be given in the K-12 curriculum. That, of course, would require the very people who are using statistics to mislead to agree. Of course, they won't.</b></div><div><b><br></b></div><div><b><br></b></div>Michael's Resumehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15472400070847709603noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-239620140160681751.post-3080595037786809262021-05-13T06:51:00.000-04:002021-05-13T06:51:01.730-04:00Locals.com<p> <span style="font-family: georgia;"><b>I am migrating from Facebook.com to Polymaths.Locals.com for several reasons</b></span></p><p><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b>1) Facebook is ineffective. I have learned that Facebook will only notify about 5% to 10% of Friends, Members or Followers of my posts. Also, the more counter-woke they are, the fewer people will be made aware of it. It is important to recognize that Facebook is not shadow banning just conservatives. They are throttling all messages that are counter to the woke message. So, most of my Polymath posts are throttled.<br /><br />When Facebook first emerged, the founder of a group was allowed to directly notify all members as long as the group had fewer than 5,000 members. Then they eliminated direct notifications entirely. Why? Because, they knew that if people were notified of all posts, they would get swamped and they would start unfriending and quitting groups. However, Facebook sells your group memberships and friends, so they don't want you doing that.<br /><br />Locals.com doesn't sell such affiliations, so they have no problem with my ability to e-mail you notification of posts. I will not swamp you. I will send you a weekly e-mail that will provide you with Abstracts of important articles.<br /><br />2) There are likely about 15,000,000 polymathic types on the Internet. After huge effort with no compensation for my time, I was able to accumulate about 3,000 of them in Polymathica. Of course, when I posted, at best, only about 300 of them would be notified. Facebook provides no feasible path from 3,000 to a significant portion of 15,000,000. They understand that any group that reached that level would no longer need Facebook.<br /><br />Locals doesn't involve itself in such behavior. However, just as importantly, Locals also blends in a Patreon type function. Certainly, you understand that nothing is free. Facebook sells your online behavior. Locals doesn't, but rather requires you to support the group in order to participate. I haven't determined it yet, but in essence you are selling your privacy for $12 to $18 per year. <br /><br />3) The other advantage is that Facebook keeps all the money that it gets for selling your information. None of it benefits the group. Say Membership in Polymaths.Locals.com costs $15 per year. Some can be used to pay one or more administrators, but most of it will be used to build the group. Your life options will explode when there is a Polymaths.Locals.com with 6 or 7 figure membership that will more than pay for the nominal support required to build it.<br /><br />4) Polymaths.locals.com will create a platform that will facilitate some of its members to become professional polymaths. Nearly all of us must engage, usually full time, in a job that in no way is polymathic. In other words, we are required to be a Polymath on a part time basis. That can change, but it will require a degree of commitment. Polymathica, the Facebook group, has existed for over a decade, but in all that time, the plight of aspiring Polymaths has not improved. We can change that.<br /><br />Locals.com is hardly perfect, though it is improving. It is blending in features of ezines and YouTube/Rumble. I'm sure it will continue to improve. As every journey begins with a first step, so does your journey to a more polymathically friendly environment. That first step is signing up at Polymaths.Locals.com</b></span></p>Michael's Resumehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15472400070847709603noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-239620140160681751.post-12850557892120562862021-04-06T05:24:00.003-04:002021-04-07T05:58:26.036-04:00How an Additional 4 Trillion USD Gets Financed.<span style="font-family: georgia;">I<b>n 2020 and 2021, the Federal deficit is projected at 5.5 trillion USD. However, 1.5 trillion is consistent with the Federal Reserve's target. The other 4.0 trillion needs to be dealt with outside of normal monetary activities. The U.S. economy will be dramatically affected by the added debt, but how it will be affected will be determined by both fiscal and monetary policy decisions.</b></span><div><b><span style="font-family: georgia;"><br /></span></b></div><div><b><span style="font-family: georgia;">M2 is currently around 19.5 trillion. If it was increased by the whole 4.0 trillion through monetization or 'quantitative easing'(commonly referred to as 'printing money'), it would result in an additional 4.0/19.5 ~ 20% inflation, over and above the Fed's 2% target. </span></b><b><span style="font-family: georgia;">If it was incurred over two years, it would result in 12% inflation per year. The U.S. would survive that, though it would undoubtedly shake confidence in the dollar. To clarify, the Federal Reserve undertakes QE by buying Treasury debt with newly created money.</span></b></div><div><b><span style="font-family: georgia;"><br /></span></b></div><div><b><span style="font-family: georgia;">On the other hand, if the Treasury auctioned debt to domestic lenders only, yields would go way up but it would not create inflation. It would push up interest rates, since the Treasury would need to incentivize the purchase. In order to do so, investors would need to liquidate other positions and thus would reduce market valuations, primarily of stocks and bonds, but likely also gold and perhaps crypto. As investors liquidated some of their positions to fund their treasury buy, those investments could be pushed into a bear market territory from which they may not easily recover.</span></b></div><div><b><span style="font-family: georgia;"><br /></span></b></div><div><b><span style="font-family: georgia;">Third, Treasuries could be purchased internationally. Like private domestic purchasers, substantial international funding would require a substantially higher yield. This, also, will push interest rates higher. </span></b><b><span style="font-family: georgia;">While counter intuitive to most people, large International treasury purchases will actually strengthen the dollar. That is because the purchases will be in dollars and they will reduce the supply of USD in forex markets. With increasing oil prices, demand could also increase. In fact, rising oil prices is likely part of the explanation for the recent strength of the dollar.</span></b></div><div><b><span style="font-family: georgia;"><br /></span></b></div><div><b><span style="font-family: georgia;">An important factor is that increasing treasury yields could increase federal interest expense and therefore future deficits. The scope will likely be insufficient to cause a fiscal death spiral. To explain, increasing interest rates creates increased deficits (unless it is financed through QE) which increases the amount of Treasuries sold which increase interest rates, which increases deficits, etc. Still, rising interest rates is certainly a downside to current policy decisions that created the additional 4.0 trillion USD of deficits..</span></b></div><div><b><span style="font-family: georgia;"><br /></span></b></div><div><b><span style="font-family: georgia;">Lastly, the 4.0 trillion could be reduced through tax increases. However, the Laffer Curve probably limits this as a useful action. To clarify, Arthur Laffer claimed that lower tax rates decrease government revenue simply from lower rates. However, less intuitive, there is a point where higher tax rates by slower economic growth and increased tax avoidance behavior actually reduces total tax revenue. The Biden Administration has already signaled its interest in a substantial tax increase, so we know that an attempt will be made to finance some of the 4.0 trillion USD in this way.</span></b></div><div><b><span style="font-family: georgia;"><br /></span></b></div><div><b><span style="font-family: georgia;">While fiscal policy will have an effect on how the budget shortfall is financed, it is primarily monetary policy that will determine the ultimate outcome. The Federal reserve will need to decide, after estimating the degree to which increases in tax revenues can cover the shortfall, how much it will finance through QE and how much it will allow to be funded by the marketplace. It can only affect how much is financed domestically and how much internationally by encouraging Congress to change laws to either incentivize or disincentivize either the international or domestic investors.<br /><br />Financing through tax increases or Q.E. does not increase the Federal debt while Treasuries funded either by domestic or international investors does. So, the claims made in the popular press that the whole of 5.5 trillion is added to the debt are incorrect. We know that the Treasury debt. It will be financed through tax increases and, while no statements have been made thus far, the Fed necessarily will purchase a substantial portion of it. It is likely that the Fed will have resistance to adding more than an additional 2.0 trillion USD to its balance sheet, so it will have a hard ceiling on inflation at about 7%.<br /><br />I'm not sure how they will do it, but I suspect that Treasury will look for ways to encourage foreign purchase of Treasury debt. The reason is that the increases in interest rates and inflation will depress the value of the dollar, while international purchases will strengthen the dollar. <br /><br />So, in summary, interest rates and inflation almost certainly will increase. Because of the massive deficit spending, economic growth will increase, however, the increases in tax rates will tend to depress economic growth. Also, the equity and debt markets will likely turn bearish as investments in Treasuries will increase.<br /><br />Hyper-inflation is not really a risk and, even with China, Iran and Russia attempting to move away from USD as the reserve currency, a collapse in the dollar is not likely. People misunderstand what causes hyper-inflation. It is actually a 'velocity' death spiral. In the U.S., today, velocity is usually around 1.3 to 1.7. It is calculated by dividing GDP by money supply. When velocity increases money supply needs to shrink or inflation will ensue. Unfortunately, historically and to a degree, even today, many currencies do not have an effective way to decrease money supply rapidly. Consequently, rapid increases in velocity will exacerbate inflation.<br /><br />A velocity of 1.5 means that, on average, any given dollar is spent once every 243 days. If velocity increases to once every 180 days, this will result in inflation of 243/180 = 35%. However, that increase in velocity can happen very quickly, say in 3 months, which creates an annualized rate of inflation of 1.35^4 = 232%. When that level of devaluation of the currency takes place, clearly people will not hold onto their currency for very long. They will be inclined to convert their currency asset into a hard asset almost immediately upon receiving it. So, if velocity increases to a turnover once every 3 days, inflation will be 243/3 = 8,000%. This has happened many times throughout history.<br /><br />It happens precisely because people lose confidence in the currency. If the Fed states that they expect inflation to increase to 7% for two years and if the public believes them, the velocity induced devaluation death spiral will not be ignited. While there is a substantial community, mostly gold bugs, that loudly proclaims the coming collapse of the dollar, in reality, the likelihood of such a collapse is slight.<br /><br />Especially, on the Right, there are many pundits proclaiming an imminent collapse of the dollar, hyperinflation and a resultant depression level economic downturn. While this substantial deficit spending, whether needful or not, is hardly a good turn of events, the apocalyptic prognostications can be safely disregarded.</span></b></div>Michael's Resumehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15472400070847709603noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-239620140160681751.post-7017864495909683952020-11-06T05:02:00.004-05:002020-11-06T05:02:48.824-05:00If the U.S. had 21st Century Elections<p><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b>One may think that the 2020 election was rigged or not. But one thing is clear. It is still being run with 19th Century procedures. The uncertainty, the claims of fraud in voting and/or counting are all the result of the use of antiquated data integrity methods. How should the election be run? Well, I'll tell you. </b><br /><br /><b>Registration should be made by appearing at an official state office and providing proof of identity, proof of eligibility to vote and proof of address. Once this is done an account is opened in your name where you will choose a e-mail address and password. This website and account is where you will vote. We already know how to secure this. If I log into Netflix on a different interface, I will get a notice on my e-mail. If I change my password, I will get a notice. In other words, I may get hacked, but they really can't keep me from knowing.</b><br /><br /><b>Next, varying by state, I will be notified that voting is open. This may be a week or two before the election date. I can make my selections immediately and I can change them as I wish up to the 'polls closed' date and time. Every time I save a change, I will receive an e-mail to inform me. At any time, I can save a copy to my computer, date stamped. Sensible people, right before the 'polls close' date and time, will go in, verify the integrity of their ballot, freeze it and save a certified copy. </b><br /><br /><b>This will also, automatically, be sent, with a coded identity to each campaign office. The purpose of this is that the official vote totals should agree with the copies received by the various campaigns. If they do not, anonymous tracing of differences will find the causes of discrepancy. The State election offices will have a conversion table, coded identity to e-mail, so that individuals with a discrepancy will be notified with official vote that they can compare to their saved and certified vote.</b><br /><br /><b>Through this process, vote count error can be reduced to zero. However, given the process, the discrepancies should be close to zero.</b><br /><br /><b>Now, one of the things that is constantly brought up by Democrats is that the process is too burdensome for the lower income people. Actually, that is a disingenuous argument because even homeless people usually have a cheap smart phone. SNAP and Medicaid recipients get <a href="https://qlinkwireless.com/#:~:text=Q%20Link%20Wireless%20is%20a,based%20on%20your%20household%20income." target="_blank">cell service for free</a>. Basic burner smart phones can be purchased for $10. Just the same, every official state office or agency can and should have the facility to update a person's account for them. It is a red herring argument and should be ignored.<br /><br />I'm sure that data security experts can improve upon this. After all, it is just off the top of my head and I am not a data security expert. What I know is that my bank gives me very secure data and update capability already. Vote integrity is fundamentally an easier process.<br /><br />I am on a path to renouncing my U.S. citizenship and in anticipation, I do not participate in voting through a U.S. Embassy. This is more a matter of the U.S. being a laughing stock as it condemns the election quality of other countries while it clearly cannot assure its own.</b></span></p>Michael's Resumehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15472400070847709603noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-239620140160681751.post-589090526024615692020-08-23T07:32:00.006-04:002020-08-23T07:54:14.225-04:00Pareto v Price<p>What a depressing situation, if Price's Law is correct. Pareto is bad, but Price's Law is worse. And the larger the organization, the worse it gets.<br /><br />Suppose GDP per capita is 100,000. If we have 90,000 people, GDP is 9,000,000,000. Price's Law says that 300 people will create $4,500,000,000 of that or $15,000,000 each. The other 89,700 create the other $4,500,000,000 or $50,167. That means that the elites are just 0.3% of the population and they earn 299X more than the average people. Now, suppose that GDP per capita is the same, but the population is increased to 9,000,000. Now Price's Law says that 3,000 people will create $450,000,000,000 or about $150,000,000 each. They will be .03% of the population and they will earn 2,990X the hoi polloi.<br /><br />So, IF Price's Law is correct, the larger the population, the more inequality. However, if Pareto is a better model, it is not anywhere near as bad. According to it, 20%^3.1 (0.68%) will create 80%^3.1 = 50%. 0.68% is much more than 0.03%. So, as bad as Pareto might be, Price's Law is much, much worse. Fortunately, the actual data doesn't seem to support Price's Law. In 2017 the top 1% of Americans owned 38.5% of the wealth. In other words, it was actually slightly more equal than Pareto and far more equal than the Price's Law prediction. <br /><br />Also, Price's Law suggests that the percent of high producers falls precipitously with increases in organizational size without explaining why that would happen. Suppose you have 100 groups with 90,000 people each. Each group has 89,700 people averaging the lower, $50,167 income. In total there are 8,970,000. However, if we smash them all together into one group, there are now 8,997,000 people earning $50,167. There is no explanation of the mechanism by which 27,000 people became unproductive simply by virtue of the organizational merger.<br /><br />Either way, the clear inequality of income and wealth in free societies is not the result of oppression. It is simply a reflection of the fact that most people are really not very productive. Also, many people, likely Jordan Peterson who uses Price's Law, will wonder why I use the .2^X and .8^X Pareto equation. It is simply because Price's Law leads to conclusions that are not supported by the evidence. The evidence supports the notion of two components to wealth and income inequality. One a linear equation that describes mechanical productivity and is usually measured by per hour compensation and the other is the exponential Pareto distribution which governs the more intangible value added.</p><p><span face="" style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;"><span style="color: red; font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">Keep in touch by subscribing to my Newsletter. I will keep you up to date on my </span></span><span style="color: red; font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif; font-style: italic; font-weight: 700;">intellectually sophisticated analysis and commentary on contemporary issues. Through my companion blog, The Nomadic Polymath I will keep you up to date on my </span><span style="color: red; font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif; font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">travels, issues for Digital Nomads and my thoughts on being a Polymath. </span></p><div style="text-align: center;"><span face="" style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;"><span style="font-weight: 700;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://michaelwferguson.blogspot.com/p/subscribe-to-polymath.html" target="_blank">Subscribe by clicking here</a></span></span></span></div>Michael's Resumehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15472400070847709603noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-239620140160681751.post-43312345464853806082020-06-01T04:32:00.001-04:002020-06-01T04:32:34.550-04:00Art Laffer and the Welfare State<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<b style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;"><span style="color: red;"><i>Subscribe to <a href="https://michaelwferguson.blogspot.com/p/subscribe-to-polymath.html" target="_blank">The Polymath</a>, my newsletter of intellectually sophisticated analysis and commentary (such as below)</i></span></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<b style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;"><span style="color: red;"><i><br /></i></span></b></div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>Art Laffer, of late, has been saying something that is really profound. I have heard him say it three times on three different outlets. It goes like this. When you take money away from a person who earned it and give it to a person who didn't, you disincentivize the producer by decreasing his reward for producing, but you also disincentivize the recipient who now does not need to produce as much to acquire the same purchasing power. This, very succinctly, explains why socialism, or more precisely, welfare states have lower GDP/capita and thus lower standards of living.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b><br /></b></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fS_Q1cfm_ls/XtSh2C21LhI/AAAAAAAADeY/gFGrf80h3LIAEKVEbcb8zr_VZvHW7B84wCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/US-vs-EU-GDP-PPP-per-capita-Comparison-1980-2018.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="739" data-original-width="1324" height="356" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fS_Q1cfm_ls/XtSh2C21LhI/AAAAAAAADeY/gFGrf80h3LIAEKVEbcb8zr_VZvHW7B84wCLcBGAsYHQ/s640/US-vs-EU-GDP-PPP-per-capita-Comparison-1980-2018.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /><br /><b>As we can see by the above chart, the U.S. has had higher GDP per capita (PPP) than the EU for the reported time period. However, the gap has been increasing. Without a doubt, some of this is the result of adding low GDP nations in Eastern Europe to the EU. However, the discrepancy exists with Western European nations, albeit at a lower percentage, as well. The question is, why would this be? The reason is almost surely that EU countries spend 45.8% of GDP on government and the U.S. <a href="https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/government-spending-to-gdp" target="_blank">spends only about 37.8%</a>. When we look at the details, the EU spends 1.9% of GDP less on defense than the U.S. but substantially more on social welfare programs, national health care being the major component.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>Art Laffer, despite not inventing it, is generally considered to be the father of the Laffer Curve and, as such, one of the primary proponents of Reagan's Supply Side Economics. While it was often referred to as 'trickle down economics' or 'voodoo economics', it is, actually, solid Economic theory and a major component of the Reagan revolution.</b></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YC2RgKynTuQ/XtSm8mWnUZI/AAAAAAAADek/QU_DOSOOv5ox7BadoJqAawtzbJHQ831_QCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/230px-Laffer-Curve.svg.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="185" data-original-width="230" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YC2RgKynTuQ/XtSm8mWnUZI/AAAAAAAADek/QU_DOSOOv5ox7BadoJqAawtzbJHQ831_QCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/230px-Laffer-Curve.svg.png" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>Basically, the Laffer Curve notes that lower taxes generally stimulates economic growth and higher taxes leads not only to lower growth but also increased tax avoidance. His claim was that at very low tax rates, while economic growth is high and tax avoidance is low, the lower tax rates result in lower tax revenues. As tax rates increase, economic growth is less and tax avoidance is greater, but the increase in tax rates in an increase in total tax revenues. At some point, the depression of economic growth and increase in tax avoidance will swamp the increased revenue from increased tax rates and total tax revenue will fall.</b><br /><br /><b>This is good Economics and really not very controversial. However, Laffer went on to claim that the tax rates at the time Reagan took office were to the right of the mode of the curve and by lowering tax rates, tax revenues would actually increase. That was very controversial, but despite that, tax rates were lowered, the economic growth rate did increase and tax revenue also increased. While the Laffer Curve is solid, there really is no good way to determine on which side of the mode a country is at present.</b><br /><br /><b>Over time, Art Laffer will undoubtedly be recognized as one of the most influential Economists of the late 20th and early 21st Centuries. However, he will not win the Nobel or other major awards for Economists because he argues for lower taxes and supply side economic policies in an era of high taxes and demand side economics. In essence, he argued for an effective decrease of total transfer payments and in the political environment of the time, this was anathema. However, his arguments are powerful and they did (and still do) diffuse into the collective intellectual consciousness and modify policy to some degree.</b><br /><br /><b>As to the divide between Supply Side and Demand Side Economics, it is a politically driven false dichotomy or what Greg Gutfeld calls <a href="https://video.foxnews.com/v/6144764282001#sp=show-clips" target="_blank">'The Prison of Two Ideas'</a>. Clearly, economic growth requires producers to produce more (Supply Side) or there is nothing more to buy. However, consumers need to have more purchasing power (Demand Side) or they will not be able to afford additional consumption. Rather than arguing that one is better than the other, a rational argument is that the two must be in balance. In other words, while fiscal and monetary policy stimulate greater supply, it must also stimulate greater demand in the same measure.</b><br /><br /><b>In other words, I am divorcing myself from Dr. Laffer's political argument while I simultaneously recognize the contribution he has made to our understanding of the relationship between economic growth and social welfare policies. I am also not arguing that because increasing social welfare expenditures lowers economic growth, society should lower social welfare spending - at least not directly. There are both economic and philosophical arguments that militate for social welfare expenditures.</b><br /><br /><b>GDP and GDP per capita are convenient and important measures of economic well being. However, they are not the only ones. While the <a href="http://math.bme.hu/~nandori/Virtual_lab/stat/special/Pareto.pdf" target="_blank">Pareto distribution</a> assures that income and wealth equality are not possible without creating disastrous economic problems, excessive inequality is politically destabilizing and can result in excessive poverty rates. Also, because high income people generally save more than low income people, changing income distribution can change the relationship between demand and supply, either causing inflation or slowing economic growth. A potential result can be depressing purchasing power among consumers while increasing the value of securities without increasing their intrinsic value.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b><br />However, one can also argue for reduced income inequality as a necessary consequence of Social Contract theory. In other words, by agreeing to the Social Contract, a citizen can reasonably expect that a full faith effort in productivity should result in sufficient income to enjoy a modest, but dignified lifestyle. To a degree, I make this argument in <a href="https://michaelwferguson.blogspot.com/2018/08/an-information-age-income-model.html" target="_blank">'An Information Age Income Model'</a>.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>It is not unreasonable to suppose that a wealthy society may want to guarantee some subset of Maslow's two lowest levels. A reasonable set would be food, shelter and health and one that is embraced by most of Europe. However, considering the disincentives discussed above, it is almost surely unwise to provide them free of charge to everyone rather than only to those who are truly in need of assistance in order to procure them. To assure these without creating too much of Dr. Laffer's disincentives is not a simple task. One could argue, as I do, that no nation is doing it well. </b></span>Michael's Resumehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15472400070847709603noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-239620140160681751.post-59654538848936723052020-05-29T03:15:00.000-04:002020-05-29T03:15:21.907-04:00A Practical Man Ponders Schrodinger<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;"><span style="color: red;"><i>Subscribe to <a href="https://michaelwferguson.blogspot.com/p/subscribe-to-polymath.html" target="_blank">The Polymath</a>, my newsletter of intellectually sophisticated analysis and commentary (such as below)</i></span></b></div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b><br />A practical man walks into a room full of theoretical men who are deeply pitched in argument. There is a box, with its door open and there is a dead cat. </b></span><b style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;">The practical man walks up and asks, 'What are you guys arguing about? Who killed the cat?'</b><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /><b>One of the theoretical men answered, 'No, we know how the cat died. It was in a box, a piece of radioactive material emitted a particle that triggered a hammer that broke a bottle of cyanide gas which killed the cat'.</b><br /><br /><b>'Well, that is pretty straightforward, if a bit odd' answered the practical man, 'So what is the argument about?'</b><br /><br /><b>'Well', the theoretical man continued, 'We differ on what happened to the alive cat'.</b><br /><br /><b>'Wait', said the practical man, 'There were two cats in the box? And one is missing?'</b><br /><br /><b>'No, there was only one cat. But we have a mathematical equation that says before we opened the door, the cat was simultaneously dead and alive.' replied the theoretical man.</b><br /><br /><b>Very skeptically, the practical man asked, 'So, you observed the cat simultaneously dead and alive?'</b><br /><br /><b>'No', replied the intellectual man, 'the equation strictly forbids that. If we try to look at it, it instantaneously is all dead or all alive'.<br /><br />'So, you are just trusting the equation that it is true, even though you can never see it?' the practical man asked.<br /><br />'Yes, that is the situation' the intellectual man assured him.<br /><br />'OK, it seems to me that the cat was half alive and half dead and when the door was opened, as odd as it sounds, the half that was alive become dead and voila' one whole dead cat.' the practical man opined.<br /><br />'Well, that was what the original interpretation was. A cat that was both alive and dead collapsed into one dead cat'. the theoretical man said, 'For mathematical reasons they say it that way, but basically they agree with you.'<br /><br />'Then, what is the argument about?' the practical man asked.<br /><br />'Recently, more and more theoretical men are arguing that when the door was opened, there became a universe where we opened the door and the cat was alive' the theoretical man answered.<br /><br />The practical man pondered that for awhile and then asked, 'Where is this other universe?'<br /><br />The theoretical man answered, 'Nowhere that we can ever locate. That is a requirement of the equation. No part of this universe can ever interact with any part of the other universe.'<br /><br />'OK. Let's see if I got this. You are arguing that the cat inside the box was both dead and alive though you can never see that. And when you opened the box, a second universe formed for the alive cat, though you can never see that, either', asked the practical man.<br /><br />The theoretical man verified, 'Yes, you have the basic principle down. Though there is an argument that both universes existed and rather than a new universe being formed, the alive cat universe became closed off to us.'<br /><br />The practical man, obviously getting disdainful, challenged, 'And, before the cat became both dead and alive, was there a dead cat universe and an alive cat universe?'</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>The theoretical man answered, 'We don't think so.'</b><br /><br /><b>'OK,' the practical man replied, 'it seems to me that there was just an alive cat universe until you put the cat in the box and it became simultaneously alive and dead. The cat then needed a universe to be alive in and a universe to be dead in.'</b><br /><br /><b>'Well, that seems reasonable. Though, I'm not sure anyone has ever thought about it that way' pondered the theoretical man.</b><br /><br /><b>'Why would anyone subscribe to this exploding number of universes theory?' asked the practical man</b><br /><br /><b>'Because they think it is easier', answered the theoretical man, 'However, they would say that the universe is a huge mass of these kinds of events and that, being the way we are, we are constantly limiting ourselves to one of them.'</b><br /><br /><b>'Wait, are you saying that in a totally inaccessible part of the universe, there is another me discussing with another you where the DEAD cat went?' the practical man asked incredulously.</b><br /><br /><b>The theoretical man chuckled and answered, 'As I understand it, yes'.</b><br /><br /><b>The practical man, after pondering for a minute or two, answered, 'Look it, it seems to me that the choice is between a hypothetical cat disappearing and a real cat hopping over to the next universe over. The hypothetical cat seems like the lesser of two evils'.</b><br /><br /><b>The practical man continued, 'Now, suppose I am going to flip a coin. But, I flip it into a box so that I don't know if it came up heads or tails. Are you saying that until I look inside the box, the coin is both heads and tails, simultaneously?'</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>The theoretical man replied, 'Well, that kind of depends upon whether your coin flip was a quantum event. If so, then, yes, in theory, the coin was in superposition, both heads and tails simultaneously. If not, well, then it was either heads or tails'.<br /><br />The practical man stared at the theoretical man, dumbfounded, 'Are you listening to yourself?'<br /><br />'OK', he continued, 'let's go back to the cat. Suppose we put one more thing into the box - a remote camera. You and your other theoretical friends are in this room doing your experiment and I am in the next room with a monitor connected to the camera. Now, suppose I turn on the monitor, before you open the door. Am I going to see a dead cat or a simultaneously alive and dead cat? And, either way, how does the cat or the universe or whatever controls this know whether I've turned on the monitor or not?'<br /><br />The theoretical man chucked and replied, 'Well, that is called the measurement problem. We aren't quite sure what constitutes an observation that will cause the cat to stop being simultaneously dead and alive and choose one or the other. Or, alternatively, branch into two universes'.<br /><br />The practical man is clearly becoming frustrated, 'It seems to me that you theoretical guys went off the rails earlier on, when you decided that your equation describes the actual universe. Let's go back to the coin flip. I can write an equation, (1/2H + 1/2T)=1 that describes the probability of the flip, assuming that no cheating is going on. It doesn't describe the universe after I flip the coin but before I look into the box. It describes my expectations of what I am going to see. Now, if I look into the box I am going to see either heads or tails and I'm not going to ask myself, if it is heads, what happened to the tails coin. Or imagine that a second universe exists where I observed tails.'<br /><br />The theoretical man, shaking his head, replied, 'No, that doesn't work. Because we have set up experiments that tested whether a particle was here or it was there and the results indicate that it was in both places </b></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>simultaneously.'<br /><br />The practical man looked shocked, 'How could that be?'<br /><br />The theoretical man replied, 'Precisely. That is what caused one of the founders of this theory to say that if it doesn't shock you, you don't understand it yet. The problem is that this indeterminacy that exists at the particle level may have effects on larger scales. Our simultaneously alive and dead cat is an example.'<br /><br />After some pondering, the practical man responded, 'Well, I know that I am a practical man and not a theoretical man, but if what you say is true, it seems that reality must, in some sense, not be real. Because, whether electrons or cats, the notion of things being simultaneously X and not X is not compatible with reality as I understand it.'<br /><br />Nodding, the theoretical man replied, 'Exactly! In fact fifty years ago, a Physicist proved that phenomena such as this simultaneously alive and dead cat force us into one of three conclusions, all of which are profoundly disturbing. One way or another, they all call into question what we consider to be reality'.<br /><br />With a huge sigh, the practical man said, 'Then, OK, I can live with that. My world does not have simultaneously alive and dead cats. You tell me that I can't ever observe such a cat. So, my world behaves as if it is real. Since I am a practical man, I can continue to behave as if the world is real while simultaneously accepting that, on some level it is not. I may have trouble with simultaneously alive and dead cats, but I don't really have trouble with a simultaneously real and unreal universe as long as the unreal one doesn't affect my observed universe. For all practical purposes, the unreal universe is theoretical. Right?'<br /><br />"Not entirely', replied the theoretical man, 'but that would require me to get into quantum tunneling or something similar. While nobody will ever observe a simultaneously dead and alive cat, we do observe, for example, electrons being places that they should not be able to be and that can affect how computers behave.'<br /><br />'Same equation?', asked the practical man?<br /><br />'Pretty much. A related one', the theoretical man agreed.<br /><br />'Well, OK, then,' the practical man said with finality, 'I'll take my counsel from Scarlett O'Hara and I'll think about this tomorrow. And, as we all know, practically speaking, tomorrow never comes.' </b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b><br /></b></span>Michael's Resumehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15472400070847709603noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-239620140160681751.post-49430508867149322962020-05-12T01:56:00.000-04:002020-05-12T01:56:38.461-04:00Revisiting Monty Hall<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>I was introduced to the Monty Hall problem at a Mensa meeting by Cyd Bergdorf, the then head of TNS and Ron Hoeflin. The problem goes like this. </b></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #202122;"><b><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">"Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, "Do you want to pick door No. 2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice?"</span></b></span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>The problem is trivial and I said immediately, 'You switch, of course'. However, then I added, 'it is irrelevant whether the host knows what is behind the doors'. This is a statement that has not been agreed with by some of the smartest people in the world. In a private message with Garth Zietsman and Rick Rosner, I found I could convince neither of them of my assertion. In a way that is good, because it required me to work very hard at creating a proof for what I saw as obvious, but difficult to express convincingly.</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>The argument for its necessity goes like this. If the host knows what is behind each door (and as Rick correctly pointed out wasn't inclined to thwart your attempt to win a car), by opening a door with a goat behind it, the host has inserted information. Essentially he has collapsed the Bayesian prior and changed the probability to 50% that there is a car behind the unchosen and unopened door. The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem" target="_blank">Wikipedia article</a> does a pretty good job of explaining this if you aren't unfamiliar with the problem.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b><br />If</b></span> <span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>the problem said that you were going to play the game 100 times and asked what strategy would be best, then whether the host knew what was behind the doors would be relevant. Either, in that sequence of 100 games, the host would or would not open doors with cars behind them based upon whether he knew what was behind the doors and was inclined to open only goat doors. Again, Rick made the very correct point that it matters what was done in the cases when the host did open a car door, if we are in the scenario where that can happen.<br /><br />But, of course, that is not the problem as stated. One is presented with a unique event and, as such, the problem surfaces one of the peculiarities of probability. I recognized this when I was about 8 and I started asking people, 'what is the probability that, if I flip a coin, it will land on heads?' Everyone, of course, answered 50%. I then replied, 'It is not. It is either 0% or 100%'. To my amazement, nobody 'got it'. In essence, you really can't average one event. The Monty Hall problem is of that type. It is played once.<br /><br />PROOF:</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Consider two sets. One is a set of n games where the host always opens a goat door. In the other set of n games, the host opens a car door 1/3 of the time. In the first set of n games, switching will win a car 1/2 of the time and staying with the door first chosen will win a car 1/3 of the time. One should switch. In the second set, one will win a car 1/3 of the time if one switches or if one stays with the door first chosen.<br /><br />Here is the key. The result is not dependent upon the value of n. If each set contains 100 games, it will be 1/3 and 1/2 for the goat door only set and 1/2 and 1/2 for the goat and car door set. If n=200, it will be the same. If it is 50 it is the same. In the first set, one should switch and in the second, it doesn't matter.<br /><br />Also, we will note that in the first set, it doesn't matter if the host is opening only goat doors by happenstance or by artifice. One can argue, convincingly, that if the host opens only goat doors 100 times and never opens a car door, he almost certainly knows what is behind the doors. However, whether he knows or just got insanely lucky doesn't matter. The answer is based upon the elements in the set, not why the elements are as they are.<br /><br />In the problem, as stated, n=1 and it belongs to the set where only goat doors are opened. In that set, one should switch doors. As we see, it doesn't matter whether a goat door was opened because of chance or because the host knew it was a goat door.<br /><br />I invite questions or refutations.<br /><br /></b></span><br />
Michael's Resumehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15472400070847709603noreply@blogger.com2