Democracy – What is that anyway?

I know, many people would be up in arms when reading this headline. For them democracy is so precious, even bears a state holiness, that they feel provoked, even personally offended, by simply question its usefulness. But those are people deeply imbued by governmental ideology. Any ideology hampers scientific analysis. (The most prominent example is the denial of the helocentric system by the catholic ideology for centuries.) Scientific endeavor has to free itself from any ideology—as far as possible—including its fervent proponents, so I don’t care.

For starters, a good collection of arguments why democracy fails can be obtained from this video:

It finally convincingly illustrates why a democratically elected government is constitutionally bound to increase the income gap. Despite all rhetoric to the contrary and despite of all the gullible people with good intentions who want to improve government to close the gap.

There is another misconception about democracy. Ideology states that democracy constitutes a collective decision and is therefore always the best one. (Condorcet developed a theorem that supports). Mato Nagel recently showed that this is not the case. On the contrary, given the Dunning-Kruger effect, the results of such a collective decision is rather mediocre at best. Now, he is confronted with a lot of hatred for his paper.

From an evolutionary point of view democracy is just camouflaged parasitism. Parasites use to evolve camouflage to evade a host’s defense system. That’s the same with a people (host) and the pack of thieves (parasites) who use government (camouflage/evading system) to protect themselves from the people’s defense.

virus_defense

Figure 1. The upper panel shows a flu virus that can invade an individual that has no antibodies neither against the blue nor the red antigen, shown in the lower part of this panel. The panel in the middle illustrated a body that effectively developed blue antibodies. That body can be infected by viruses coated with red antigens only. The lower panel shows the opposite case. In all cases the virus adapts to the immune system to improve its chances to cause an epidemic infection.

Even the mechanisms to break a host’s defense are similar to the flu virus. Every year a flu virus generates new strains and by invading the people the one that experiences the least counter attacks by the human bodies becomes epidemic. Every year an other strain. And after a couple of years, when the immune system’s memory has declined enough, an old strain can become epidemic again.

Figure 2. The adaptation of social parasites works similarly. Instead of coating antigens, they hide themselves by the shield of government from their hosts defense system. The upper panel shows a population that is not yet immune against any kind of social theft, so their defense systems symbolized by fists in the lower panel are not activated yet. The middle and the lower panel illustate how the shield changes according the accumulation of hatred in the population. Same as with flu viruses, the shield that shows the least counter attack is employed to cause the epidemic.

Figure 2. The adaptation of social parasites works similarly. Instead of coating antigens, they hide themselves by the shield of government from their hosts defense system. The upper panel shows a population that is not yet immune against any kind of social theft, so their defense systems symbolized by fists in the lower panel are not activated yet. The middle and the lower panel illustate how the shield changes according the accumulation of hatred in the population. Same as with flu viruses, the shield that shows the least counter attack is employed to cause the epidemic.

That sound quite similar to democratic elections, and the US American elections in particular. In primaries the most sympathetic candidate is forged and finally chosen to become epidemic for 4-8 years. After that period the people become resistant to that strain (party) and usually elect the other strain (party).

Against flu, vaccination is effective. There does not exist vaccination against government. Most people aren’t even aware of its role. It can be depressing to realize that we all live in a state of chronic social disease, and many people don’t even have an idea how it feels to be free and uncompromised.


Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at www.fauceir.org.

Advertisements

Why ad hominem attacks in science are so successful

Reading this blog post I wonder if personal information are required in scientific publications for a single reason: to allow ad hominem attacks afterwards 😉

More seriously now:

I wonder if relevant scientific articles shouldn’t have been better published anonymously. For two reasons

  1. to avoid ad hominem attacks, as in the above mentioned example, and
  2. to prevent toadies in case of “big” names

In other words, it would allow to evaluate research on its scientific merits instead of celebrity. I can’t help but thinking that this was one the primary intentions of that very article in question.


Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at www.fauceir.org.

Stagnation of real wages in Western countries – Evolutionary analysis

Discussions about stagnation of real wages are a thorny issue in many discussions online. I think that stagnation is typical of all Western countries, and among many graphs I found this one most instructive as it correlates productivity and real wages. The gap that is rising from the early seventies is discussed by fauceir terms.

Real wages

Though this graph is from Wikipedia, unfortunately the original source (BLS) is unknown.

Usually wages are correlated with productivity, at least it works that way in free market capitalism. If there is a workforce on the free labor market that shows higher productivity, firms would compete to hire it. As higher productivity translates into higher profits firms can offer more salary, and that way wages become adjusted to workforce productivity. If this is not the case as shown in the picture, two reasons come into mind.

  1. There is no real increase in productivity.
  2. There is no real free market

Hypothesis 1: No real increase in productivity

There are difficulties to define productivity nationwide. According to Wikipedia it is easily determined for a single firm.

Productivity is a ratio of production output to what is required to produce it (inputs of capital, labor, land, energy, materials, etc.). The measure of productivity is defined as a total output per one unit of a total input.

But defining productivity of a whole nation is not trivial. (1) OECD defines productivity as work load per GDP. (2) The graphic depicts productivity restricted to major sector productivity. Both methods have their drawbacks.

The OECD method estimated productivity too height as GDP includes unproductive, even destructive money transfers. Usually in a healthy free market society GDP well correlates with overall production output, and also typically of a healthy free market society, there is only as much work force employed as necessary. Under such circumstances the ratio of GDP and employed workforce offers a good measure of a nations productivity. On the contrary an unhealthy market, one full of parasites, will give a distorted impression of productivity calculated by the OECD method.

The major sector productivity also estimates a nation’s average productivity too high. Although the real productivity in major sector firms may have been increased that increase may be eaten up by other sectors, parasitic ones in particular.

Conclusively, a nation’s average productivity can be estimated as a sum of independent units only if the units are acting really independently as typical of a free market. In a highly regulated markets as in all Western countries the whole nation has to be considered as a single unit. The output of such a unit is by contrast to blunt GDP the output of production minus unproductive output which include taxes, subsidies, social transfer, and lobbying costs. There unproductive outputs have to be added at the input side of the productivity ratio. To give the economic analogy of productivity of a single firm. Such a company may only sum up the income generated by selling the product as real output. If the company also improves working condition, this is input not output, but a nation’s GDP includes both.

Given the real calculations of a nations productivity as discussed above, I doubt there is any increase in productivity throughout the Western countries. I’d rather think that the average productivity is as flat or even declining as wages are.

Hypothesis 2: No free market

Admittedly, there is a remaining free labor market in all Western countries (at least the workers are free to choose a better position – employers are not so free any more to fire and hire a better worker), so by the free market mechanism as discussed above, wages should rise with productivity. Why did not?

To explain this we have to distinguish two types of productivity, the overall productivity and the workforce productivity. Of course only workforce productivity is immediately mirrored in wages given a free labor market. If a firm cannot expect a higher output by hiring a better worker it wouldn’t offer a better salary. However sure enough, if the worker is more qualified to operate a machine with better output he or she will be lured by the firm anyway. Thus if not immediately, through intermediate steps of more productive equipment and education, free market competition will translate into better wages. What however if the market is highly regulated?

And the market is highly regulated indeed.

  1. If competitors are not allowed to buy new machines or to launch production of new products due to market regulations they won’t hire workers to do the production. Example: Most of the iPhone production is in China. It would be easy for any other entrepreneur to sell a similar gadget for a better price, and I’m convinced still would be able to pay newly hired Apple workers better wages. But this is unfeasible as government protects Apple’s production by several copyright and patent laws.
  2. If an entrepreneur wants to launch production he or she might be deterred by subsidies or long term contracts granted to competitor. Example: the US automobile industry received such subsidies as well as Boeing and Airbus making it impossible for newcomers to enter the market.

Conclusively, though the labor market remained at least partially free, other market regulation stopped workers opportunities to negotiate.

Summary

As hypothesized at the beginning of this article the stagnation of real wages in the US and other Western countries is due to governmental market regulations.

  1. Governments by inflating parasitic industries and institutions eat up most of the increase in productivity still generated by some major sectors, so nothing is left over for worker’s wages.
  2. Governments prevent free market competition.

That is, instead of ensuring fairness in free market competition governments became participants in that competition themselves. By that measure they evolved back into feudalistic entrepreneurs (as medieval kingdoms) which is why we encounter all the problems typical of feudalism (including the monetary crisis) now.

Conclusively though governments insist that their market regulation are for the benefit of workers, they effectively cause the opposite, which will be even more obvious if raising income inequality is considered.


Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at www.fauceir.org.

The two perspectives of group intelligence

Browsing the category intelligence among wordpress blogs, I stumbled over a group intelligence article and following link after link I ended up at an article from Harvard Business Magazine. The quote worth discussing goes:

Drawing on that insight, we advised the center’s manager to revise the employees’ coffee break schedule so that everyone on a team took a break at the same time. That would allow people more time to socialize with their teammates, away from their workstations.

That’s meant to be rocket science from Harvard: A team’s productivity may be increase by increasing coffee break communication. Take a coffee break to let it sink in.

Let’s imagine employees using their coffee breaks to communicate ideas how to demand more coffee brakes (and ultimately more salary for better efficiency). Let’s imagine team members coming up with better drugs to enhance socialization. Vodka for that purpose has highly valued properties, or what’s about qat.

All that is not new of course. Social communication and drugs that enhance it has been used since time immemorial to influence people, to manipulate them to cajole them into doing things that otherwise they would refuse to do with enthusiasm. I reported of beer used to motivated workers at the pyramids. There are more recent examples. Nazi Germany used amphetamine enriched chocolate to enhance bomber pilot’s tolerance to all the destruction and killing that they caused by their planes. Russian red army soldiers were filled up with booze before sending them into a desperate mission.

German pilots

German pilots received special amphetamine enriched chocolate before takeoff to destructive missions in WW2

On the other hand, let’s imagine genius mathematicians like Gauss or musicians like Glinka being forced into coffee breaks to socialize with mediocre teammates. Which improvement would cause this communication?

It is not new of course, geniuses also need a social environment as much as they need a proper biological environment, including food and sex. Gauss found such a favorable social environment as described in this book. Probably, if he had not found so many supporters of his education, he would not have reached that level of sophistication. The same holds true if he were starving.

Discussing the phenomenon of group intelligence two things are inadvertently or intentionally mixed, but there is a fine line between a group being lured by social incentives and a group forming a favorable environment for some genius to develop.

From fauceir perspective it is the question of who enslaves whom. The first is the enslavement of humans by society the second is the enslavement of the society by human minds. Don’t ask which side I prefer to take.


Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at www.fauceir.org.

Never ask a parasite

Never ask a parasite how to fight parasitism. You certainly would get the wrong answer.

The interpretation of advantage, advancement, and even progress is relative. It depends on the observer’s position. The same is true for social parasites.

  • Ask a mafiosi and he will probably suggest that he should take over police control to reduce crime.
  • Ask a beggar and he would probably suggest giving more to charity.
  • Ask an academic and she would probably suggest raising taxes.
  • Ask a politician and she would probably suggest a reduction in people’s freedom.
  • Ask a bureaucrat and she would probably disapprove bureaucracy in other departments.

Therefore, never judge a political opinion without analyzing the social background it derives from.


Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at www.fauceir.org.

Why didn’t Nobel endow a prize in economics?

Because he knew that a good economist wouldn’t need a prize. An excellent economist is a rich economist.

Picture from Nobelprize.org

It was at the beginning of the 20th century when the most prudent people realized that science and innovation is what drives the economy and social evolution. By that time—and it didn’t have change too much—science’s most prestigious branches were chronically underfunded and scientists scarified their money, health, and sometimes even their life for scientific progress. Nobel’s intention was to bolster those devoted people and by that way to support social progress.

The Nobel prize was a great success right from the beginning. The fist prize winners, especially those in nuclear physics, such as Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen, Antoine Henri Becquerel, Pierre Curie, Marie Curie, Johannes Diderik van der Waals, Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck, and Albert Einstein raised this prize’s reputation. A reputation that by the years attracted growing media attention.

While media attention has been growing the uniqueness of the laureate’s scientific discoveries is not. The Nobel prize became a hype about shallow science. (A tendency that culminated in a Nobel Peace Prize for popular science in 2007.) The Nobel Prize is nothing more but an ideological tool.

When it became a potent ideological lever, the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences was started. It wasn’t Nobels intention, I assume, to create an award for propaganda. As ideology has never been good science, I would think being awarded with a Nobel Prize in Economics is not at all good but foremost bad reputation. Good economists operate a good economy. They are rich anyway.


Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at www.fauceir.org.

Universities are feudalistic structures

When created in medieval times universities copied most of the structures that ruled that time. In some places they even evolved straight from monasteries. In other more secular places they rather copied rules of conduct from the royal court. Even today most of these structure are present and in perfect shape and use. Still the universities’ hierarchy is strong and tightly related to titles that say nothing about a persons abilities but deserve respect: doctor, university lecturer, faculty member, professor, dean, rector. Please compare with aristocratic title such as squire, prince, duke, king.

Besides titles university authorities share dress code and ornaments with aristocrats. It is so ridiculous, so misplaced in our modern societies that I can say I would feel more comfortable in a clown’s costume or executing Santa, really.

But apart from those mind-bogging, rather intimidating ceremonies what else universities have in stock. The answer falls short. Universities are meant to promote research, but to my knowledge all big discoveries and big inventions through the last two centuries or so have been made outside universities’ ivory towers.

The list is incomplete—I’m certain—but I cannot think of all examples. Even such expensive projects such as space programs run outside universities in Russia and the US. Well, and last but not least fauceir theory.

You may ask why we still need universities despite their obvious inefficiency and their clinging on to archaic customs. The answer is simple we need them for education and data storage. That’s the only thing universities are really good at, but we shouldn’t allow them to spoil our lives. They belong to ancient fauceirs and are outdated as the sharia and inquisition to name only a few medieval fauceirs.


Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at www.fauceir.org.