How Would You Like to Go Down in History As a Great Economic Reformer of Human Civilization?
Not long ago, I was talking to a gentleman who was trying to coax me into promoting a new economic scheme.
He indicated that anyone who would bring such a concept to the forefront would go down in history as a great reformer of economics, society, and human civilization, and he wondered if I'd be interested? No thanks to that.
You see, one thing I've noted is you can spend your whole life creating something you believe in and modifying the way things are in the world.
In the end you will either win or lose, fail or succeed, but just as you win or succeed, there will be a counter opposing force or individual who sees the world the opposite and work to build a base of supporters who will undo everything you've built and move to destroy your life's work.
No I am not a pessimist, or cynic, that's just the way it works, and I am an observer of all things; political or otherwise, and that's a good lesson for you to realize early on.
Now then, if you find a "leader" to go down in history for being a reformer, all he or she would have done is become the leader of a chimpanzee troop, of typical carbon based bi-ped behavior, all completely predictable.
And a "leader" of human society, which isn't saying much, as the species and the way it operates does leave a lot to be desired at times.
No, not good or bad, it just is.
My acquaintance with the new economic scheme, needing a lightning rod to bring it forth attempted to use the analogy or a flight instructor and student in explaining how he'd designed this new enlightened economic concept.
Well, to that I say, regarding the flying analogy for designing a new economic system; yes, if the system, your system, my system or any system for that matter, regardless of the industry, or sector - if that system is designed correctly, and if you keep the ball in the center, have proper trim, the aircraft will most likely recover from most future challenges (stalls and spins for instance).
However, if the aerodynamic design is not one with the proper dihedral, or the wings are swept a bit much, then you cannot take your hands off the controls, thus the system is bound to go astray.
So in the case of a new economic system, obviously it must be designed right, flight tested; including unusual attitudes, spin, slow flight, take off and landing, etc.
Perhaps this is why I like my concept of an Artificial Intelligent 4D computer system akin showing every world transaction, electronic or otherwise in real time.
This would be a good test platform for any new economic scheme or adjustments in flight.
It would of course be akin to a wind-tunnel to take a look at it.
Likewise any new economic concept needs to be tested in an enclosed marketplace to start, to find the flaws, every great aircraft started with some flaw or challenge to overcome.
Remember the quote; "Never fly the first 200 of anything ever built!" Thus, in building any new economic system, the job is to build a Cessna 150, Piper Tomahawk, American Yankee, Beechcraft Skipper or some other aircraft that flies with docile and forgivable/predictable attributes for the test market.
Still, we are forewarned, that as the system adds components, inflows, foreign investment into the system; it's like taking a single engine trainer aircraft and adding variable pitch propeller, retractable gear, another engine, and turning it into a turbine powered aircraft.
The original airframe will not support that, thus you've added the complexity you fear.
Simplicity breeds complexity (See; Steven Wolfram's New Type of Science).
Indeed, in looking at the free-market and the global economic crash, I'd say it was meaningful folks, who attempted to do what they thought was nice for people who couldn't afford mortgages that allowed Fred and Fran to run amuck, then propped up the false reality, and promoted more of the same.
Then as the little Cessna 150 with student and instructor aboard flew on a long-cross-country flight, the rest of the free-market responded by adding a jet engine, sweeping the wings, and all of a sudden that little trusty design departed from flight, lost airfoil surfaces and burned in.
In hindsight the NTSB blamed everyone, and the regulators put in so many new restrictions that the new plane and design can't get off the ground.
And that folks is where our economy is today, whose fault is this? One could say it is those who added changes to a simple, workable, free-market economy, thinking their new scheme could defy the laws of gravity or be dismissed from the forces or weight, thrust, relative wind, and did not properly calculate it all.
The economy then could not recover from the spin without a lot of muscle, and control, exactly the opposite of how it is supposed to operate or how it was designed.
If one wants to try a new economic scheme, fine, but do it where it won't hurt anyone for instance, I think a new economic scheme could be tried in a place like Afghanistan, Honduras, Haiti, where these is an absence of any current system, thus able to build from scratch to prove concept, without risk.
Trying a new economic scheme in the US is really, really risky, until you have the bugs worked out.
Even the J-3 Cub went through several design changes before it hit major production.
Today, Piper is making VLJs.
Moral of the story; "Don't let some un-achieved day-dreamer lead you to believe that they will make you a star for serving their will," because that is the definition of diplomacy and manipulation; "Allowing someone else to serve your will!" Think on this, it's time to get this economy back to what really works, not try out some new socialist-communist-capitalist hybrid, not now, and not in the USA.
Please consider all this.
He indicated that anyone who would bring such a concept to the forefront would go down in history as a great reformer of economics, society, and human civilization, and he wondered if I'd be interested? No thanks to that.
You see, one thing I've noted is you can spend your whole life creating something you believe in and modifying the way things are in the world.
In the end you will either win or lose, fail or succeed, but just as you win or succeed, there will be a counter opposing force or individual who sees the world the opposite and work to build a base of supporters who will undo everything you've built and move to destroy your life's work.
No I am not a pessimist, or cynic, that's just the way it works, and I am an observer of all things; political or otherwise, and that's a good lesson for you to realize early on.
Now then, if you find a "leader" to go down in history for being a reformer, all he or she would have done is become the leader of a chimpanzee troop, of typical carbon based bi-ped behavior, all completely predictable.
And a "leader" of human society, which isn't saying much, as the species and the way it operates does leave a lot to be desired at times.
No, not good or bad, it just is.
My acquaintance with the new economic scheme, needing a lightning rod to bring it forth attempted to use the analogy or a flight instructor and student in explaining how he'd designed this new enlightened economic concept.
Well, to that I say, regarding the flying analogy for designing a new economic system; yes, if the system, your system, my system or any system for that matter, regardless of the industry, or sector - if that system is designed correctly, and if you keep the ball in the center, have proper trim, the aircraft will most likely recover from most future challenges (stalls and spins for instance).
However, if the aerodynamic design is not one with the proper dihedral, or the wings are swept a bit much, then you cannot take your hands off the controls, thus the system is bound to go astray.
So in the case of a new economic system, obviously it must be designed right, flight tested; including unusual attitudes, spin, slow flight, take off and landing, etc.
Perhaps this is why I like my concept of an Artificial Intelligent 4D computer system akin showing every world transaction, electronic or otherwise in real time.
This would be a good test platform for any new economic scheme or adjustments in flight.
It would of course be akin to a wind-tunnel to take a look at it.
Likewise any new economic concept needs to be tested in an enclosed marketplace to start, to find the flaws, every great aircraft started with some flaw or challenge to overcome.
Remember the quote; "Never fly the first 200 of anything ever built!" Thus, in building any new economic system, the job is to build a Cessna 150, Piper Tomahawk, American Yankee, Beechcraft Skipper or some other aircraft that flies with docile and forgivable/predictable attributes for the test market.
Still, we are forewarned, that as the system adds components, inflows, foreign investment into the system; it's like taking a single engine trainer aircraft and adding variable pitch propeller, retractable gear, another engine, and turning it into a turbine powered aircraft.
The original airframe will not support that, thus you've added the complexity you fear.
Simplicity breeds complexity (See; Steven Wolfram's New Type of Science).
Indeed, in looking at the free-market and the global economic crash, I'd say it was meaningful folks, who attempted to do what they thought was nice for people who couldn't afford mortgages that allowed Fred and Fran to run amuck, then propped up the false reality, and promoted more of the same.
Then as the little Cessna 150 with student and instructor aboard flew on a long-cross-country flight, the rest of the free-market responded by adding a jet engine, sweeping the wings, and all of a sudden that little trusty design departed from flight, lost airfoil surfaces and burned in.
In hindsight the NTSB blamed everyone, and the regulators put in so many new restrictions that the new plane and design can't get off the ground.
And that folks is where our economy is today, whose fault is this? One could say it is those who added changes to a simple, workable, free-market economy, thinking their new scheme could defy the laws of gravity or be dismissed from the forces or weight, thrust, relative wind, and did not properly calculate it all.
The economy then could not recover from the spin without a lot of muscle, and control, exactly the opposite of how it is supposed to operate or how it was designed.
If one wants to try a new economic scheme, fine, but do it where it won't hurt anyone for instance, I think a new economic scheme could be tried in a place like Afghanistan, Honduras, Haiti, where these is an absence of any current system, thus able to build from scratch to prove concept, without risk.
Trying a new economic scheme in the US is really, really risky, until you have the bugs worked out.
Even the J-3 Cub went through several design changes before it hit major production.
Today, Piper is making VLJs.
Moral of the story; "Don't let some un-achieved day-dreamer lead you to believe that they will make you a star for serving their will," because that is the definition of diplomacy and manipulation; "Allowing someone else to serve your will!" Think on this, it's time to get this economy back to what really works, not try out some new socialist-communist-capitalist hybrid, not now, and not in the USA.
Please consider all this.