In a world where machines do most of the work, it is time for a universal basic income. This will distribute the gains from productivity, and give more people the opportunity to focus on purposeful, passion-driven work, allowing for the next generation of ideas and technologies to emerge faster.
Self-Driving Cars Will Improve Our Cities. If They Don’t Ruin Them.
Robin Chase

Absolutely NOT!

If you, as an entrepreneur, are talking about how great your invention is, that is great, you should know all about that.

What you don’t seem to understand is economics: you are currently disincentivising your own industry through these taxes you are proposing. The equilibrium model of economics, though it has been wrong about the stock market, means that everyone will rationally follow which options for their existence benefit them the most. The inside/outside information model of economics, which has been more correct about the stock market at least, states the existence of a complex system that has autonomous, irrational actors (humans), that will react to people going into and coming out of a system in different Tiers (at 100% participation, T1 will be first to pull out, this could be 1% of the population; T2 (could be 2%) is second to pull out, they pull out should 1% pull out; T3 (could be 3%), they pull out should 3% pull out; T4 (could be 4%), they pull out should 6% pull out; T5 (could be 5%), they pull out should 10% pull out; T6 (could be 6%), they pull out should 15% pull out; T7 (could be 7%), they pull out should 21% pull out; T8 (could be 8%), they pull out should 28% pull out; T9 (could be 9%), they pull out should 36% pull out; T10 (could be 10%), they pull out should 45% pull out; T11 (could be 11%), they pull out should 55% pull out; T12 (could be 12%), they pull out should 66% pull out; T13 (could be 13%), they pull out should 78% pull out; T14 (could be 4%), they pull out should 92% pull out; T15 (could be 4%) are the last to pull out) which would cause a system to cease to exist depending on the amount of people required to have a critical mass. Such a collapse could be slowed by a stick (Stalin’s Purges) or avoided with a very realistic carrot (NEP), but those cannot guarantee anything. (Those numbers may be different, but such a model is required when considering someone’s (or something’s) political appeal in terms of momentum of what the other voters see in other voters when only the first tier is considering everything objectively.)

These two economic principles matter a great deal in regards to people deciding whether or not socialism (which has a critical mass of ~40% reached with above e^years/100 momentum of acceptance over at least two years for adoption and 50% leaving), storing money in a bank before 1933 (generally requires $1M capital on hand multiplied by the number of deposits the average depositor thinks are in the bank that could be a liability against him in case of a crisis), readopting capitalism in our economy (entirely dependent on what kind of stick the federal, state and local governments are holding), or even choosing to quit one’s job in order to take in the fruits of someone else’s labor (which is the only example in which someone is making a prima facie decision of equilibrium and the tier model).

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.