This universe is not object oriented.
There is no distinction between cause and effect.
There is no distinction between supply and demand.
There is no distinction between past and future.
There is no gap between one life and another.
There is no gap between life and non-life.
Humans are object oriented. Reality is not.
Anthropomorphism is the underlying cause of much of this world's nonsense. People continually try to drag structures into their personal reality, in the process, distorting them.
Thus do we get religion, demand economics, effort worship, justice, etc.
Goods are heterogeneous. One good cannot be transmuted into another. Goods are inequal. Money is not some sort of alchemical stone that turn X into Y. As such, you cannot feed the hungry by redistributing money from the rich. You cannot house the homeless by redistributing money from the rich.
In order to house someone, what is required, is a house. In order to feed someone, what is required, is food. This is true for every need- money is merely an overlay.
The amount of houses available is dependent on numerous factors. Many factors are unknown. In fact, most are unknown. Money is a system that allows efficient distribution of resources within largely unknown and unknowable environments.
The market is efficient.
Not in the logical sense- obviously, some level of supersentience could come up with a superior distribution.
The market is, in the end, just a name, given to whatever technology happens to be most efficient.
Thus, under any condition wherein market failure will arise, all other mechanisms will also fail.
Thus, all houses will be usefully employed. If a house appears not to be usefully employed, this merely demonstrates a failure of measurement. The house is usefully employed.
A house will, if worthwhile, be produced.
In turn, the market, automatically produces and sells houses. The only reasonable route of attack, is to say-
"We can cause people to make more houses than they otherwise would have."
or
"We can cause people to make more poor friendly uses of the houses."
Both ignore the obvious issue that- if the market has found a better use for the house than housing the homeless, or if the market has found a better use for its land than a housing project- that path has higher utility. It's utterly self destructive to cut off your high end projects to achieve your low end projects.
Setting that aside, the attempt still will not succeed.
This is because, it is very rare for the market to prioritize something above food, housing and transportation. It doesn't. If something can be used to produce one of these items, that is how it will be used.
Furthermore, the rich are not capable of outbidding the poor.
A homeseeker can pay well above the actual value of the house, while the speculator must make a profit on his purchase. Similarly, rich people are limited in number, and require maximum productivity on their property. Even if they own multiple properties, they must keep the properties occupied, on any margin.
The market is highly attuned to need. Someone who needs something more, will almost assuredly outbid someone who is merely richer.
As such, the amount of houses available is near the maximum imposed by resource constraints. As such, attempting to redistribute in order to improve housing, is futile. The more poor people money is given to, the more housing prices will rise.
This is the same dynamic that can be seen in education right now- first we sent everyone to high school. The project failed laughably- high school degrees lost all value, and college became the new standard for job seekers. Of course, popular opinion just started trying to churn out college degrees, but that's failing in the exact same way.
Education is not, and has never been, a limiting reactant. The amount of jobs available will not change, regardless of how much education there is.
Food comes from farms. Their yields are maintained through use of fertilizer and other resources. And, importantly, the food is worthless until it is moved from farm to consumer, a process that is often more difficult than creating the food to begin with.
Food is heterogeneous. Apples are not corn. At times, the best way to feed the most people, is to throw away apples to free up resources for use with corn. Waste is a part of efficiency.
As such-
Money owned by rich people is different than money owned by poor people.
And more to the point-
No two goods are identical.
Thus-
Nothing is fungible.
In order to transform one property, all other properties must also be transformed. Popular redistribution schemes only work logically, because their authors, basically, are changing one angle of a triangle without changing the other two.
In other words, redistribution doesn't work because it attempts to redistribute toxic mortgage bond swaps into physical houses. In the end, the price of houses rises, the price of debt bond hedge funds falls, and the physical reality approaches ground state.
Trade deficits are mathematical artifact. They have little relevance to the structures they are invoked to affect.
Simply, in any trade, both sides benefit. When a mutually beneficial deal is detected, it is executed. IE- If a person buys X from a foreigner, and pays in dollars, then the market advances. The foreigner cannot just turn around and demand, say, the buyer's house. No matter how many dollars the foreigner owns, prices will respond accordingly and the market will avoid any regression.
As such, dollars will circulate until the market arrives at an ideal ground state. It is irrelevant who owns the dollars in the end. Forcing additional trades will just pull away from the ground state. Worst of all, the market will just push back towards the ground state, rendering the effort futile.
Only two mechanisms can close a trade deficit- Tax imports or subsidize exports. Any alternative is either futile, or an obfuscated variation of the above.
Jobs are not productivity.
People want jobs mainly for respect and security.
Average income from, say, running a start up, or investing in a corporation, or inventing a machine, etc- is much higher than any field of work. As such, money, per se, isn't what is desired.
Entertainment is an important element of why people try to obtain jobs. However, jobs are not as entertaining as say, video games. Or sports. Or clubs. Etc. If the only issues were money and entertainment, jobs wouldn't exist.
Jobs only grant respect because they are scarce. If everyone had a job, no one would notice that a particular person had a job.
Respect is zero sum. Rather, respect is a ranking ladder- X>Y>Z. To be respected, means, that your desires outweigh those of others beneath you.
Jobs only grant security because they are scarce.
Jobs fundamentally give only security from other humans. A job will not cure you of disease. It will not protect you from lightning. It will not slow aging. Rather, it actually reduces your defenses against natural agents.
A job gives you several forms of security-
People who respect you. One job leads to another. And, from a liver transplant to getting a new law passed, connections are powerful.
A steady income. This should not be confused with a steady flow of resources. Income is the ability to outbid other humans, and is, therefore, zero sum.
A place in society. Homeless people constantly find themselves accosted, not simply by lack of resources, but a hostile law code designed to locate and destroy them. It isn't uncommon for people to single out outsiders and act against them. The defense, is to not stand out. This is, fundamentally, a security through obscurity mechanism, and thus, zero-sum. Someone has to be the one who most stands out.
Taking into account what a job is, what it means, and why people want it- It is logically impossible for everyone to have a job.
Of course, it would be easy to give everyone something and just call what they're given a job. But, this will just result in treadmilling.
There is no distinction between cause and effect.
There is no distinction between supply and demand.
There is no distinction between past and future.
There is no gap between one life and another.
There is no gap between life and non-life.
Humans are object oriented. Reality is not.
Anthropomorphism is the underlying cause of much of this world's nonsense. People continually try to drag structures into their personal reality, in the process, distorting them.
Thus do we get religion, demand economics, effort worship, justice, etc.
Goods are heterogeneous. One good cannot be transmuted into another. Goods are inequal. Money is not some sort of alchemical stone that turn X into Y. As such, you cannot feed the hungry by redistributing money from the rich. You cannot house the homeless by redistributing money from the rich.
In order to house someone, what is required, is a house. In order to feed someone, what is required, is food. This is true for every need- money is merely an overlay.
The amount of houses available is dependent on numerous factors. Many factors are unknown. In fact, most are unknown. Money is a system that allows efficient distribution of resources within largely unknown and unknowable environments.
The market is efficient.
Not in the logical sense- obviously, some level of supersentience could come up with a superior distribution.
The market is, in the end, just a name, given to whatever technology happens to be most efficient.
Thus, under any condition wherein market failure will arise, all other mechanisms will also fail.
Thus, all houses will be usefully employed. If a house appears not to be usefully employed, this merely demonstrates a failure of measurement. The house is usefully employed.
A house will, if worthwhile, be produced.
In turn, the market, automatically produces and sells houses. The only reasonable route of attack, is to say-
"We can cause people to make more houses than they otherwise would have."
or
"We can cause people to make more poor friendly uses of the houses."
Both ignore the obvious issue that- if the market has found a better use for the house than housing the homeless, or if the market has found a better use for its land than a housing project- that path has higher utility. It's utterly self destructive to cut off your high end projects to achieve your low end projects.
Setting that aside, the attempt still will not succeed.
This is because, it is very rare for the market to prioritize something above food, housing and transportation. It doesn't. If something can be used to produce one of these items, that is how it will be used.
Furthermore, the rich are not capable of outbidding the poor.
A homeseeker can pay well above the actual value of the house, while the speculator must make a profit on his purchase. Similarly, rich people are limited in number, and require maximum productivity on their property. Even if they own multiple properties, they must keep the properties occupied, on any margin.
The market is highly attuned to need. Someone who needs something more, will almost assuredly outbid someone who is merely richer.
As such, the amount of houses available is near the maximum imposed by resource constraints. As such, attempting to redistribute in order to improve housing, is futile. The more poor people money is given to, the more housing prices will rise.
This is the same dynamic that can be seen in education right now- first we sent everyone to high school. The project failed laughably- high school degrees lost all value, and college became the new standard for job seekers. Of course, popular opinion just started trying to churn out college degrees, but that's failing in the exact same way.
Education is not, and has never been, a limiting reactant. The amount of jobs available will not change, regardless of how much education there is.
Food comes from farms. Their yields are maintained through use of fertilizer and other resources. And, importantly, the food is worthless until it is moved from farm to consumer, a process that is often more difficult than creating the food to begin with.
Food is heterogeneous. Apples are not corn. At times, the best way to feed the most people, is to throw away apples to free up resources for use with corn. Waste is a part of efficiency.
As such-
Money owned by rich people is different than money owned by poor people.
And more to the point-
No two goods are identical.
Thus-
Nothing is fungible.
In order to transform one property, all other properties must also be transformed. Popular redistribution schemes only work logically, because their authors, basically, are changing one angle of a triangle without changing the other two.
In other words, redistribution doesn't work because it attempts to redistribute toxic mortgage bond swaps into physical houses. In the end, the price of houses rises, the price of debt bond hedge funds falls, and the physical reality approaches ground state.
Trade deficits are mathematical artifact. They have little relevance to the structures they are invoked to affect.
Simply, in any trade, both sides benefit. When a mutually beneficial deal is detected, it is executed. IE- If a person buys X from a foreigner, and pays in dollars, then the market advances. The foreigner cannot just turn around and demand, say, the buyer's house. No matter how many dollars the foreigner owns, prices will respond accordingly and the market will avoid any regression.
As such, dollars will circulate until the market arrives at an ideal ground state. It is irrelevant who owns the dollars in the end. Forcing additional trades will just pull away from the ground state. Worst of all, the market will just push back towards the ground state, rendering the effort futile.
Only two mechanisms can close a trade deficit- Tax imports or subsidize exports. Any alternative is either futile, or an obfuscated variation of the above.
Jobs are not productivity.
People want jobs mainly for respect and security.
Average income from, say, running a start up, or investing in a corporation, or inventing a machine, etc- is much higher than any field of work. As such, money, per se, isn't what is desired.
Entertainment is an important element of why people try to obtain jobs. However, jobs are not as entertaining as say, video games. Or sports. Or clubs. Etc. If the only issues were money and entertainment, jobs wouldn't exist.
Jobs only grant respect because they are scarce. If everyone had a job, no one would notice that a particular person had a job.
Respect is zero sum. Rather, respect is a ranking ladder- X>Y>Z. To be respected, means, that your desires outweigh those of others beneath you.
Jobs only grant security because they are scarce.
Jobs fundamentally give only security from other humans. A job will not cure you of disease. It will not protect you from lightning. It will not slow aging. Rather, it actually reduces your defenses against natural agents.
A job gives you several forms of security-
People who respect you. One job leads to another. And, from a liver transplant to getting a new law passed, connections are powerful.
A steady income. This should not be confused with a steady flow of resources. Income is the ability to outbid other humans, and is, therefore, zero sum.
A place in society. Homeless people constantly find themselves accosted, not simply by lack of resources, but a hostile law code designed to locate and destroy them. It isn't uncommon for people to single out outsiders and act against them. The defense, is to not stand out. This is, fundamentally, a security through obscurity mechanism, and thus, zero-sum. Someone has to be the one who most stands out.
Taking into account what a job is, what it means, and why people want it- It is logically impossible for everyone to have a job.
Of course, it would be easy to give everyone something and just call what they're given a job. But, this will just result in treadmilling.
