No its not because of an earthquake?
Scratches to Sketches
Friday, 25 April 2014
Communism no, fairness yes...
This post has been reworked slightly...
For the economist reader, it all has to do with Pareto and Piketty..
I would have started with the Pareto distribution of incomes that shows how the rich benefit from growth at the expense of the average. Piketty deserves a nobel prize for showing that economists are too narrow in their focus in a world in which information, particularly patents, in the hands of public institutions are grossly undervalued.
My own modelling suggests that a lognormal distribution representing changes in average incomes might be more easily understood by the lay person. Relate change in the rate of return on capital relative to the change in real growth through the lognormal distribution that reflects return on capital in a fast growing economy.
My point is that the faster the economy grows, the more apparent becomes the lognormal distribution viz-a-viz the normal distribution. We accelerate to Piketty unfair land because of more rapid growth. If we want a normal distribution of incomes, we need to slow down the rate of real growth which in turn reduces the rate of return on capital. Its all very edifying. Slow growth is good for the average person while fast or ever faster growth is bad.
How does one achieve a normal distribution of incomes instead of a lognormal one? The fast way is to get rid of patent protection. Its monopolies based on patents that produce faster and faster growth as well as higher and higher yields on capital. If the world adopted share ware technical progress this would reduce the rate of return on capital while allowing a faster rate of economic growth.
Its all very simple and based on Schumpeterian growth dynamics. Somehow we are led to the idea that we must protect the interests of the rich through patents. They do not auger well for income distribution.
The lie is that patents do good or help with innovation. Patent life can be shortened as an experiment say from 20 to 7 years.
Another step would be to raise interest real rates so that borrowing for acquisition would be reduced. So called rich companies accelerate their rate of return on capital through acquisitions.
Lastly, take on the banks and make them really efficient like the text book. That would greatly help in the distribution of unearned returns on capital.
Arthur
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/25/piketty-and-pareto/?_php=true&_type=blogs&module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog+Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs®ion%3DBody&_r=0
More at: http://www.woohs.blogspot.com/
Scientists one step closer to a working quantum computer - CSMonitor.com
The science is one now of error control. Once that is achieved, we will begin to see a commercial quantum computer. Not a question of if, but of when? Such computers are extraordinarily powerful.
Presentation on dangers of non-ionizing MV radiation to eyes in particular
Warning! Some photographs of effects are not pleasant.
FYI
OSHA Training and Reference Materials Library - Suggested Update to RF Standards Related to Wireless Communications
News standards are OBVIOUSLY required otherwise US government departments would not be feuding
https://www.osha.gov/dte/library/radiation/rf_nc_standard/index.html
https://www.osha.gov/dte/library/radiation/rf_nc_standard/index.html
US Department of Labor on Non-ionizing radiation.
Why do people say non-ionizing radiation is safe? Clearly many people are under a false impression?
Foundation for Fundamental Research on Matter
What are risks of non-ionizing radiation? It's not true to say there are none, but why don't we know more? It all has to do with how new knowledge is created and disseminated. Whether people like the new knowledge is critical. In Plato's story of the cave the messenger who brought new knowledge was killed because people could not handle truth? Socrates likewise was killed... Eventually people come to understand and accept new knowledge and that is what we would call REAL progress. At one time, people thought microcomputers were impossible. Do you?
Paul Krugman: Thomas Piketty’s got conservatives running scared - Salon.com
So, are you a Marxist?
If you think the modern economy is a greatly uneven game and that total wealth is distributed more to those who inherit it rather than earn it, you probably think its time for social policy to add more evenhandedness to the game and perhaps tax inherited wealth a bit heavier.
Does that make you a Marxist? Or say .... Who cares any more? What's past is past and the young will decide if they can, one way or another...
Maybe you think those that inherit wealth should be trained how to manage their windfall rather than waste it. A compulsory school for those who inherit a billion dollars, who are apt to waste it when they could do something productive with it other than financing personal armies and shooting poor people....
Is Putin a Marxist?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
YOU HAVE REACHED WOOH'S STREAM
The Internet User's Best Kept Secret
Sketches from scratches is a provocative blogspot that has grown out of the Wuh Lax experience. It is eclectic, which means that it might consider just about anything from the simple to the extremely difficult. A scratch can be something that is troubling me or a short line on paper. From a scratch comes a verbal sketch or image sketch of the issue or subject. Other sites have other stuff that should really be of interest to the broad reader. I try to develop themes, but variety often comes before depth.
... more!