ECONOMIC INEQUALITY RATING APP (EIRA)


A Concept Guaranteed To Stop Economic Inequality



Part One-The General Concept

FirstRateCrowd has developed an idea for an Economic Inequality Rating App for handheld or other uses. This will essentially become a way to economically boycott select aspects the 1%. The Rating App will provide clear guidelines as to which products and services, or which individuals providing these products or services, are aligned with the 99%-Crowd in contrast to those aligned with the 1%. By following these ratings, the 99% can not only capture the revenue normally lost to the 1% through Economic Inequality, but also redirect this revenue back to themselves.

This technology will make economic choices in support of the 99% simple and convenient to use; individuals can then change the economic equation back in favor of the 99%. This freedom of choice in the marketplace completely bypasses the usual political, tax, and judicial gridlock by placing the power directly back into the hands of the 99% to decrease economic inequality.

By way of example, if a product such as a teapot is produced by a company with a high Inequality Rating, then we know the company producing the item is more aligned with the 1%. This purchase should be boycotted in favor of a teapot produced by another company with a lower Inequality Rating. Given the choice of purchase between the two different teapots of similar design, color, durability, and price, the teapot with the lower Inequality Rating should be chosen; this decision favors the well-being of the 99%. If one financial institution is to be chosen over another with similar services and value, then the one with a lower Inequality Rating is more in line with the 99% and should be chosen. Moreover, an individual in a position to influence an economic decision, but with a high Inequality Rating, as expressed by their views and actions, should be discarded in favor of an individual who supports the 99%.

Moreover, an individual in a position to influence an economic decision, but with a high Inequality Rating, as expressed by their views and actions, should be discarded in favor of an individual who supports the 99%.

This is a concept only. Our community will not actually develop the working app but will only discuss and develop the concept. We believe the concept is invaluable in our mission to stop economic inequality. Our goal in this matter is to create the demand for the concept such that a third party outside our organization, such as an individual, company, or another entity, would want to develop the actual app or a similar item.

CLICK HERE to return



Part Two-Details of the Technology

ECONOMIC INEQUALITY RATING APP (EIRA)- PART TWO-TECHNOLOGY



CROWD-SOURCED ECONOMIC INEQUALITY RATING

First Rate Crowd



TECHNICAL FIELD

[0001] This disclosure relates to using crowd-sourcing techniques to assign economic inequality ratings, for example, to consumer goods and services.

BACKGROUND

[0002] Economic inequality, also known as income inequality, wealth inequality, or the gap between rich and poor, generally refers to how economic metrics are distributed among individuals in a group, among groups in a population, or among countries. Economists generally think of three metrics of economic disparity: wealth (wealth inequality), income (income inequality), and consumption. The issue of economic inequality can implicate notions of equity, equality of outcome, and equality of opportunity.

[0003] Some studies have emphasized inequality as a growing social problem. Many believe that too much inequality can be destructive because income inequality and wealth concentration can hinder long term growth. In 2011, International Monetary Fund economists showed that greater income equality—less inequality—increased the duration of countries' economic growth spells more than free trade, low government corruption, foreign investment, or low foreigndebt.

[0004] Economic inequality varies between societies, historical periods, economic structures and systems. The term can refer to cross sectional distribution of income or wealth at any particular period, or to the lifetime income and wealth over longer periods of time. One technique for potentially reducing economic inequality involves the active redistribution of wealth – enforced and implemented by a governmental entity – often in the form of highly progressive taxation of either income or potentially also accrued wealth.

SUMMARY

[0005] This disclosure relates to using crowd-sourcing techniques to assign economic inequality ratings, for example, to consumer goods and services. The ratings can then be used by consumers in making purchasing decisions, for example, to decide whether to purchase a good or service having a high economic inequality rating or instead purchase a different good or service, namely, one having a lower economic inequality rating but otherwise having essentially the same attributes, functionality, features, etc. In this manner, collective purchasing decisions can be made that will tend to reward manufacturers and service providers that provide goods and services, respectively, that are regarded in the collective mind as tending to have low inequality ratings.

[0006] In an exemplary implementation, a computer-implemented method performed by a host system, or a system having a processor and a memory for storing machine instructions, may involve the following operations. A page may be presented including a description of an entity, the description including information relevant to the entity’s degree of economic inequality. From each of a plurality of remote client devices, user input may be received relating to an economic inequality rating assigned to the entity by a user of the respective remote client device. An economic inequality score may be calculated for the entity based on the received user input. The calculated economic inequality score may be displayed on the page associated with the entity. The receiving, calculating, and displaying may be repeated to update the calculated economic inequality score for the entity as additional user input is received.

[0007] The entity may be one or more of a good, a service, a person, an organization, an event, a place, an idea, or an object. The information relevant to the entity’s degree of economic inequality may include one or more of the following economic inequality attributes: (a) geographic origins, (b) associated individuals, (c) associated organizations, (d) profit margin, (e) associated ethical practices, and/or (f) essentially any other attribute as appropriate or desired. Receiving user input may involve receiving a separate rating value for each of the entity’s one or more economic inequality attributes. Calculating the economic inequality score may involve computing the score based on each of the separate rating values received for the entity’s one or more of economic inequality attributes. Computing the economic inequality score based on each of the separate rating values received comprises using a different weighting factor for each of the different one or more economic inequality attributes. The different weighting factors to be applied to each of the different one or more economic inequality attributes is based on user input received from one or more of the client devices.

[0008] Details of one or more implementations of the subject matter described in this specification are set forth in the accompanying drawings and the description below. Other features, aspects, and potential advantages of the subject matter will become apparent from the description, the drawings, and the claims.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0009] FIG. 1 is a network diagram of a crowd-sourced environment that may be used to implement the systems and methods described in this document.

[0010] FIG. 2 illustrates a flowchart of a process for rating an entity such as a good or service.

[0011] FIG. 3 is a block diagram of computing devices that may be used to implement the systems and methods described in this document.

[0012] Like reference numbers and designations in the various drawings indicate like elements.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0013] Many who are concerned that economic inequality is an increasing societal problem have adopted the slogan "We are the 99%." Utilized by the "Occupy Movement" in 2011, the phrase refers to the perceived income and wealth inequality in the United States with an undue concentration of wealth among the top earning 1% of the population. It reflects an opinion that the "99%" are paying the price for the mistakes of a tiny minority within the upper class.

[0014] To help combat growing economic inequality, the present inventor has developed an “economic inequality rating” system. The system provides clear guidelines as to which products and services are aligned with the 99%-Crowd in contrast to those aligned with the 1%. By following these ratings, the 99% can not only capture the revenue normally lost to the 1% through Economic Inequality, but also redirect this revenue back to themselves. The technology described here makes economic choices in support of the 99% simple and convenient to use; individuals can then change the economic equation back in favor of the 99%. This freedom of choice in the marketplace completely bypasses the usual political, tax, and judicial gridlock by placing the power directly back into the hands of the 99% to decrease economicinequality.

[0015] Economic Inequality is the gap between what the top 1% of the population has with regards to wealth and income, and what the remaining 99% has. This ever-growing gap is causing an unparalleled degree of dysfunction and suffering within society. A goal of the system described here is to create a global Economic Inequality Rating for use by the 99%, and which will tend to curb the intolerable widening economic inequality gap with the 1%.

[0016] In general, products and services aligned with the 1% would have a high Inequality Rating compared to those whose products and services that side with the 99%. In practice, those in the 99%-Crowd would avoid purchasing those products and services with a high Inequality Rating. Instead, they would favor the use of products and services with a lower Inequality Rating, which are more aligned with their values. This is, in essence, a boycott of those in the 1% who tend not to share the same democratic principles. This strategy circumvents the political, tax, and legal gridlock by providing individuals a sensible and direct grassroots way to use the power of the 99% over the authority of the 1%.

[0017] Even if one believes that the current economic system is broken and no longer works for the 99%, it may not necessarily be the best solution to do away with the system. Rather, the wiser course is to repair it by regulating it in a practical and common-sense way, and make it work once again for the 99, thereby changing the balance of the inequality equation. The inequality rating described here provides the “Crowd” (i.e., not only the 99% but also those in the 1% who are sympathetic to the plight of the 99% and want to effect change) with a new way to choose economic outcomes in a more favorable fashion aligned with the 99%’s best interests. It is an existential principle of choice in economic matters that allows a greater freedom in meeting one’s own needs; this more sovereign position is the liberty worth striving for.

[0018] The deleterious effects of wealth and income inequality upon society are well- documented. The negative attributes of a widening gap between the 1% and the 99% is not only injurious to the economy and fabric of society but also to the very psyche of the individuals who participate in this economic turmoil. The gap between the two extremes is now at such an intolerable level that action must be taken; this is not only an economic imperative but a moral one as well. Not taking action is tantamount to losing our freedom.

[0019] The overall strategy is to identify those products, services, companies, individuals, and philosophies that are aligned with the 1%, so these can be avoided in favor of those aligned with the 99%. A wealth-and-income Economic Inequality Rating is to be developed and implemented by the Crowd; this will provide the Crowd the ability to bring about an informed choice. A high Economic Inequality Rating is seen as support for the 1%; a lower Inequality Rating is seen as support for the principles of the 99%. The individual is granted the relative knowledge upon which to base an economic decision. Selecting a product, service, or company with a high Inequality Rating is not in line with the instrumental needs of the 99% and should be boycotted. By having the knowledge and application derived from our Inequality Rating, the 99% will be able to make better choices. Rest assured, this boycott of the 1% will beeffective.

[0020] By way of example, if a product such as a teapot is produced by a company with a high Inequality Rating, then we know the company producing the item is more aligned with the 1%. This purchase should be boycotted in favor of a teapot produced by another company with a lower Inequality Rating. Given the choice of purchase between the two different teapots of similar design, color, durability, and price, the teapot with the lower Inequality Rating should be chosen; this decision favors the well-being of the 99%. If one financial institution is to be chosen over another with similar services and value, then the one with a lower Inequality Rating is more in line with the 99% and should be chosen. Moreover, an individual in a position to influence an economic decision, but with a high Inequality Rating, as expressed by their views and actions, should be discarded in favor of an individual who supports the 99%.

[0021] FIG. 1 is a network diagram of a crowd-sourced environment that may be used to implement the systems and methods described in this document. As shown therein, the crowd 100 is composed of individuals having client devices 102 (e.g., PC, laptop computer, tablet, smart phone, etc.), which have communication links 104 to a network 106. The network 106, in turn, is in communication with a host system 108. In this example, the host 108, which may be a server computer system or the like, hosts a page, e.g., an Inequality Rating Website (“IRW”), which the crowd 100 can access (i.e., view and interact with) using their respective client devices 102 via the network 106 and communication links 104. As shown, the IRW 110 displays an entity, in this example a good, specifically a watch 114. Although a specific good is used in this example, the entity to be rated on the IRW 110 can be essentially any good or service, or for that matter, essentially anything else that can be rated, e.g., a person, place, organization, object, idea, political party, smell, color, taste, etc. As used herein, the term “entity” is intended to encompass anything that is capable of being rated.

[0022] The IRW 110 also includes a description 112 of the watch 114 including, for example, what it is made of, its features, functionality and the like. The description 112 may also include clickable links that, when clicked, will take users to associated webpages at which they can conduct more in depth research about the entity being rated. The description 112 further includes information relevant to the entity’s degree of economic inequality. In this example, such information may include items such as the identity of the manufacturer (or in the case of a service, the identity of the service provider), the price of the entity, the country of origin, associated organizations, associated individuals, the profit margin associated with the entity, and associated ethical practices (e.g., whether child or slave labor is used to produce or deliver the entity). In this example, the watch 114 is quite expensive( > $100,000), is produced by a luxury goods company, has a high profit margin, and originates from Switzerland, a country that has a relatively high Gini coefficient (which is one measure of economic inequality). Accordingly, crowd members viewing this information may (or may not) decide that it merits giving the entity being rated (i.e., the watch 114) a relatively high inequality rating, meaning that it does not represent the values of the 99-percenters, but rather is associated with the1-percenters.

[0023] Generally speaking, inequality ratings are based on input only from a subset of the general public. Specifically, the overall Community is made up of various crowds (e.g., about 30 crowds to start with). One of these crowds is designated the 99% crowd. From this 99% crowd, another sub-crowd would be selected that will actually produce the Economic Inequality Rating. The individuals in that sub-crowd will be pre-screened to insure they are 99% crowd-Certified and to ensure they are knowledgeable in specific Inequality Attributes, either in general, or relevant to the entity being rated, or both. These individuals will be responsible for creating the Inequality Attribute Scores. These scores will then be tallied in some fashion, be it an average, a weighted average based upon a specific attribute, or some other method such as an algorithm to determine the overall inequality score.

[0024] Note that most individuals both on and off the platform will not have the expertise to give individual Inequality Attribute Scores. Individuals contributing to this will need to be screened based upon their expertise in a certain field. For example, a member with knowledge in the field of Associated Ethical Practices, may not be knowledgeable in the area of Associated Organizations and will be prohibited from contributing to Attributes in which he or she is not knowledgeable. Then there may be the rare individual who is knowledgeable in all of the Attributes and can freely provide a rating in all ofthem.

[0025] To give the watch 114 an economic inequality rating, an appropriate sub-crowd member (i.e., one pre-qualified to submit inequality attribute scores) would use his or her client device 102 to interact with portion 116 of the IRW 110. As shown in the example of FIG. 1, to provide economic inequality rating input, a sub-crowd member would provide separate inequality attribute scores for each of several different inequality attributes (e.g., geographic origin, associated individuals, associated organizations, profit margin, associated ethical practices) , for example, giving each a score between 0 and 100 (where 0 represents the lowest degree of economic inequality and 100 represents the highest degree of economic inequality). The separate inequality attribute scores will then be used by the host system to calculate, potentially based on different weighting factors applied to different attributes, an overall inequality score. If such weighting factors are used, they may be based either on sub- crowd input or determined by host system administrators, or a combination of both.

[0026] The resulting economic inequality rating may then be displayed on the IRW 110, and used by any or all crowd members (or anyone else having knowledge of the information) to make purchasing decisions. For example, those who wish to support the values and ideals of the 99% may decide not to purchase goods or services that have high economic inequality ratings, but rather opt for alternatives that have lower economic inequality ratings. As a result, manufacturers and service providers of goods and services who produce or provide goods and services having low economic inequality ratings will tend to be rewarded by such purchasing decisions, while manufacturers and service providers of goods and services who produce or provide goods and services having high economic inequality ratings will tend to be punished by such purchasing decisions.

[0027] As noted above, once the overall inequality score has been tallied, then any one can use this score as long as they have access to the online platform (e.g., via either a specialized app on a mobile device, or using a standard web browser). It could be an individual who is not a member on our site but who has access. It could be a member of the site who is in the book crowd but is not in the 99% crowd on the site. It could be a member of our site who is in the 99% crowd on our site. It could be a member who is both in the book crowd and the 99% crowd on the site. Finally, it can be one of the members who was per-screened 99% crowd-Certified and who is approved as a member to create the overall inequality rating by contributing to the individual inequality attributescores.

[0028] Note that the five individual inequality attributes used in FIG. 1 are merely exemplary. Essentially any other attribute – whether different from or additional to those listed could be used as appropriate and desired.

[0029] As described above, although in theory any user of the IRW 110 could rate an entity, in practice it is more likely, and arguably more useful, to have “specialists” in various areas provide the inequality ratings. Examples of such specialists may include economists, business reporters, business researchers, college academicians, social researchers, work standard bureaus, and a multitude of other appropriately qualified individuals that will feed their information to the host to generate the final inequality score and report. Guidelines will be set up by the community as to what weight to give the manufacturer, Associated Organizations, and Associated Individuals or other aspects of therating.

[0030] Given the above, the IRW 110 could provide two different interfaces for two different communities: one interface (potentially requiring special login credentials) for the qualified raters (i.e., those who will provide input that will be used to assign an inequality score), and another interface for the general public who desire to research products and services to determine, among other information, what inequality score they have been assigned. Such members of the general public often will have already narrowed down buying choices to one or two options, for example, by visiting a store and asking questions of a sales person there, and/or by consulting other sources of available information. Such sales people (or other informational sources) can generally provide descriptive information about products or services themselves, but typically do not provide information useful in making inequality rating decisions (e.g., identity of manufacture, country of origin, associated individuals, ethical practices, profit margin, CEO’s salary to average worker ratio, etc.). Consequently, a consumer desiring to take into account an entity’s inequality rating will not ordinarily have sufficient information available simply from visiting a brick & mortar storefront or from conventional informational shopping or review websites. That’s where the IRW 110 comes in.

[0031] For example, imagine a consumer desiring to pursue a high end watch who has narrowed his or her selection to two different options: either a UlysseNardin or a Rolex. Before making a purchase, the consumer typically will have narrowed the decision down to these two selections by consulting a variety of informational sources such as a sales person at a brick & mortar storefront, Consumer Reports journal, specific trade magazines, a rating website, or the like. Assume further that all available information reveals that the two watch options have roughly the same features, quality, styling, price point, and/or other decisional criteria important to the consumer. Consequently, the consumer’s ultimate decision may be relatively arbitrary given the similarity between the two based on the available information. But the IRW, however, which gives inequality ratings scores to the two different watch options, will provide the consumer with important additional information – derived from information and expert input not readily available to the consumer – about which of the two watch options better supports the 99% compared to the other.

[0032] For example, everything else being equal between the two companies that make the respective watches, UlysseNardin's CEO may have a salary ratio of 350 to 1 compared to the average worker in the company where as Rolex's CEO’s salary ratio may only be 225 to 1. Based upon this information, the economic inequality rating would be higher for UlysseNardin compared to the lower rating of Rolex, meaning that, in relative terms, Rolex is more associated with the 99% and UlysseNardin is more associated with the 1%. The point is that it is the specific crowd providing the ratio information (i.e., the above noted specialists and experts) that is important in providing this information to the host for the final algorithm, not the general public end user per se (unless it is the end user who happens to be providing the ratio information although this likely would be a rare event).

[0033] FIG. 2 illustrates a flowchart of a process 200 for rating an entity such as a good, service, person, organization, event, political party, or essentially anything else that can be rated. As shown therein, at 202, a page (e.g., a webpage) is presented that includes a description of an entity (e.g., good or service) to be rated. The description includes information relevant to the entity’s degree of economic inequality, thereby enabling the crowd members rating the entity to make informed rating decisions.

[0034] At 204, crowd input is received by the host system from each of multiple remote client devices, each such device typically associated with a different crowd member. Such input typically would be received over an extended period of time such as days, weeks or months. The received user input relates to an economic rating assigned to the entity being rated by the crowd member associated with a respective client device.

[0035] At 206, the host system calculates an economic inequality score for the entity being rated based on the crowd input received up until that time. For example, if the crowd input consists of overall inequality ratings, the calculated economic inequality score may be a running average of the received scores. Alternatively, or in addition, if some or all of the received crowd input consists of individual inequality attribute scores, the host system could first calculate a composite score for each submitting crowd member before using it to recalculate the running average. As noted above, the composite score based on individual attribute scores could use different weighting factors for different attributes. For example, either the profit margin or ethical practices scores, or both, could be weighted more heavily so that they influence the resulting composite score more than the other individual inequality attributescores.

[0036] At 2008, the calculated economic inequality score is displayed on the page, e.g., in conjunction with the entity being rated. At 210, receiving user input, calculating inequality ratings, and displaying them can be repeated in an ongoing manner as additional user input is received.

[0037] FIG. 3 is a block diagram of computing devices 300, 350 that may be used to implement the systems and methods described in this document, as either a client or as a server or plurality of servers. Computing device 300 is intended to represent various forms of digital computers, such as laptops, desktops, work stations, personal digital assistants, servers, blade servers, mainframes, and other appropriate computers. Computing device 350 is intended to represent various forms of mobile devices, such as personal digital assistants, cellular telephones, smartphones, and other similar computing devices. Additionally computing device 300 or 350 can include Universal Serial Bus (USB) flash drives. The USB flash drives may store operating systems and other applications. The USB flash drives can include input/output components, such as a wireless transmitter or USB connector that may be inserted into a USB port of another computing device. The components shown here, their connections and relationships, and their functions, are meant to be exemplary only, and are not meant to limit implementations of the inventions described and/or claimed in this document.

[0038] Computing device 300 includes a processor 302, memory 304, a storage device 306, a high-speed interface 308 connecting to memory 304 and high-speed expansion ports 310, and a low speed interface 312 connecting to low speed bus 314 and storage device 306. Each of the components 302, 304, 306, 308, 310, and 312, are interconnected using various busses, and may be mounted on a common motherboard or in other manners as appropriate. The processor 302 can process instructions for execution within the computing device 300, including instructions stored in the memory 304 or on the storage device 306 to display graphical information for a GUI on an external input/output device, such as display 316 coupled to high speed interface 308. In other implementations, multiple processors and/or multiple buses may be used, as appropriate, along with multiple memories and types of memory. Also, multiple computing devices 300 may be connected, with each device providing portions of the necessary operations (e.g., as a server bank, a group of blade servers, or a multi-processor system).

[0039] The memory 304 stores information within the computing device 300. In one implementation, the memory 304 is a volatile memory unit or units. In another implementation, the memory 304 is a non-volatile memory unit or units. The memory 304 may also be another form of computer-readable medium, such as a magnetic or optical disk.

[0040] The storage device 306 is capable of providing mass storage for the computing device 300. In one implementation, the storage device 306 may be or contain a computer-readable medium, such as a floppy disk device, a hard disk device, an optical disk device, or a tape device, a flash memory or other similar solid state memory device, or an array of devices, including devices in a storage area network or other configurations. A computer program product can be tangibly embodied in an information carrier. The computer program product may also contain instructions that, when executed, perform one or more methods, such as those described above. The information carrier is a computer- or machine-readable medium, such as the memory 304, the storage device 306, or memory on processor 302.

[0041] The high speed controller 308 manages bandwidth-intensive operations for the computing device 300, while the low speed controller 312 manages lower bandwidth- intensive operations. Such allocation of functions is exemplary only. In one implementation, the high-speed controller 308 is coupled to memory 304, display 316 (e.g., through a graphics processor or accelerator), and to high-speed expansion ports 310, which may accept various expansion cards (not shown). In the implementation, low-speed controller 312 is coupled to storage device 306 and low-speed expansion port 314. The low-speed expansion port, which may include various communication ports (e.g., USB, Bluetooth, Ethernet, wireless Ethernet) may be coupled to one or more input/output devices, such as a keyboard, a pointing device, a scanner, or a networking device such as a switch or router, e.g., through a network adapter.

[0042] The computing device 300 may be implemented in a number of different forms, as shown in the figure. For example, it may be implemented as a standard server 320, or multiple times in a group of such servers. It may also be implemented as part of a rack server system 324. In addition, it may be implemented in a personal computer such as a laptop computer 322. Alternatively, components from computing device 300 may be combined with other components in a mobile device (not shown), such as device 350. Each of such devices may contain one or more of computing device 300, 350, and an entire system may be made up of multiple computing devices 300, 350 communicating with eachother.

[0043] Computing device 350 includes a processor 352, memory 364, an input/output device such as a display 354, a communication interface 366, and a transceiver 368, among other components. The device 350 may also be provided with a storage device, such as a microdrive or other device, to provide additional storage. Each of the components 350, 352, 364, 354, 366, and 368, are interconnected using various buses, and several of the components may be mounted on a common motherboard or in other manners as appropriate.

[0044] The processor 352 can execute instructions within the computing device 350, including instructions stored in the memory 364. The processor may be implemented as a chipset of chips that include separate and multiple analog and digital processors. Additionally, the processor may be implemented using any of a number of architectures. For example, the processor 310 may be a CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computers) processor, a RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computer) processor, or a MISC (Minimal Instruction Set Computer) processor. The processor may provide, for example, for coordination of the other components of the device 350, such as control of user interfaces, applications run by device 350, and wireless communication by device350.

[0045] Processor 352 may communicate with a user through control interface 358 and display interface 356 coupled to a display 354. The display 354 may be, for example, a TFT (Thin-Film-Transistor Liquid Crystal Display) display or an OLED (Organic Light Emitting Diode) display, or other appropriate display technology. The display interface 356 may comprise appropriate circuitry for driving the display 354 to present graphical and other information to a user. The control interface 358 may receive commands from a user and convert them for submission to the processor 352. In addition, an external interface 362 may be provided in communication with processor 352, so as to enable near area communication of device 350 with other devices. External interface 362 may provide, for example, for wired communication in some implementations, or for wireless communication in other implementations, and multiple interfaces may also beused.

[0046] The memory 364 stores information within the computing device 350. The memory 364 can be implemented as one or more of a computer-readable medium or media, a volatile memory unit or units, or a non-volatile memory unit or units. Expansion memory 374 may also be provided and connected to device 350 through expansion interface 372, which may include, for example, a SIMM (Single In Line Memory Module) card interface. Such expansion memory 374 may provide extra storage space for device 350, or may also store applications or other information for device 350. Specifically, expansion memory 374 may include instructions to carry out or supplement the processes described above, and may include secure information also. Thus, for example, expansion memory 374 may be provide as a security module for device 350, and may be programmed with instructions that permit secure use of device 350. In addition, secure applications may be provided via the SIMM cards, along with additional information, such as placing identifying information on the SIMM card in a non-hackable manner.

[0047] The memory may include, for example, flash memory and/or NVRAM memory, as discussed below. In one implementation, a computer program product is tangibly embodied in an information carrier. The computer program product contains instructions that, when executed, perform one or more methods, such as those described above. The information carrier is a computer- or machine-readable medium, such as the memory 364, expansion memory 374, or memory on processor 352 that may be received, for example, over transceiver 368 or external interface362.

[0048] Device 350 may communicate wirelessly through communication interface 366, which may include digital signal processing circuitry where necessary. Communication interface 366 may provide for communications under various modes or protocols, such as GSM voice calls, SMS, EMS, or MMS messaging, CDMA, TDMA, PDC, WCDMA, CDMA2000, or GPRS, among others. Such communication may occur, for example, through radio-frequency transceiver 368. In addition, short-range communication may occur, such as using a Bluetooth, WiFi, or other such transceiver (not shown). In addition, GPS (Global Positioning System) receiver module 370 may provide additional navigation- and location-related wireless data to device 350, which may be used as appropriate by applications running on device350.

[0049] Device 350 may also communicate audibly using audio codec 360, which may receive spoken information from a user and convert it to usable digital information. Audio codec 360 may likewise generate audible sound for a user, such as through a speaker, e.g., in a handset of device 350. Such sound may include sound from voice telephone calls, may include recorded sound (e.g., voice messages, music files, etc.) and may also include sound generated by applications operating on device350.

[0050] The computing device 350 may be implemented in a number of different forms, as shown in the figure. For example, it may be implemented as a cellular telephone 380. It may also be implemented as part of a smartphone 382, personal digital assistant, or other similar mobile device.

[0051] Various implementations of the systems and techniques described here can be realized in digital electronic circuitry, integrated circuitry, specially designed ASICs (application specific integrated circuits), computer hardware, firmware, software, and/or combinations thereof. These various implementations can include implementation in one or more computer programs that are executable and/or interpretable on a programmable system including at least one programmable processor, which may be special or general purpose, coupled to receive data and instructions from, and to transmit data and instructions to, a storage system, at least one input device, and at least one output device.

[0052] These computer programs (also known as programs, software, software applications or code) include machine instructions for a programmable processor, and can be implemented in a high-level procedural and/or object-oriented programming language, and/or in assembly/machine language. As used herein, the terms "machine-readable medium" and "computer-readable medium" refer to any computer program product, apparatus and/or device (e.g., magnetic discs, optical disks, memory, Programmable Logic Devices (PLDs)) used to provide machine instructions and/or data to a programmable processor, including a machine-readable medium that receives machine instructions as a machine-readable signal. The term "machine-readable signal" refers to any signal used to provide machine instructions and/or data to a programmable processor.

[0053] To provide for interaction with a user, the systems and techniques described here can be implemented on a computer having a display device (e.g., a CRT (cathode ray tube) or LCD (liquid crystal display) monitor) for displaying information to the user and a keyboard and a pointing device (e.g., a mouse or a trackball) by which the user can provide input to the computer. Other kinds of devices can be used to provide for interaction with a user as well; for example, feedback provided to the user can be any form of sensory feedback (e.g., visual feedback, auditory feedback, or tactile feedback); and input from the user can be received in any form, including acoustic, speech, or tactile input.

[0054] The systems and techniques described here can be implemented in a computing system that includes a back end component (e.g., as a data server), or that includes a middleware component (e.g., an application server), or that includes a front end component (e.g., a client computer having a graphical user interface or a Web browser through which a user can interact with an implementation of the systems and techniques described here), or any combination of such back end, middleware, or front end components. The components of the system can be interconnected by any form or medium of digital data communication (e.g., a communication network). Examples of communication networks include a local area network ("LAN"), a wide area network ("WAN"), peer-to-peer networks (having ad-hoc or static members), grid computing infrastructures, and theInternet.

[0055] The computing system can include clients and servers. A client and server are generally remote from each other and typically interact through a communication network. The relationship of client and server arises by virtue of computer programs running on the respective computers and having a client-server relationship to each other.

[0056] Although a few implementations have been described in detail above, other modifications are possible. In addition, the logic flows depicted in the figures do not require the particular order shown, or sequential order, to achieve desirable results. Other steps may be provided, or steps may be eliminated, from the described flows, and other components may be added to, or removed from, the described systems. Accordingly, other implementations are within the scope of the following claims.

[0057] What is claimed is:

  • A computer-implemented method performed by a host system, the method comprising:
    • presenting a page including a description of an entity, the description including information relevant to the entity’s degree of economic inequality;
    • receiving, from each of a plurality of remote client devices, user input relating to an economic inequality rating assigned to the entity by a user of the respective remote client device;
    • calculating an economic inequality score for the entity based on the received user input;
    • displaying the calculated economic inequality score on the page associated with the entity; and
    • repeating the receiving, calculating, and displaying to update the calculated economic inequality score for the entity as additional user input is received.
  • The method of claim 1, wherein the entity comprises one or more of a good, a  service, a person, an organization, an event, a place, an idea, or anobject.
  • The method of claim 1, wherein the information relevant to the entity’s degree of economic inequality includes one or more of the following economic inequality attributes: (a) geographic origins, (b) associated individuals, (c) associated organizations, (d) profit margin, or (e) associated ethicalpractices.
  • The method of claim 1, wherein the information relevant to the entity’s degree of economic inequality includes at least one economic inequality attribute other than or in addition to the following: (a) geographic origins, (b) associated individuals, (c) associated organizations, (d) profit margin, or (e) associated ethical practices.
  • The method of claim 3, wherein receiving user input comprises receiving a separate rating value for each of the entity’s one or more economic inequality attributes.
  • The method of claim 5 wherein calculating the economic inequality score comprises computing the score based on each of the separate rating values received for the entity’s one or more of economic inequalityattributes.
  • The method of claim 6, wherein computing the economic inequality score based on each of the separate rating values received comprises using a different weighting factor for each of the different one or more economic inequalityattributes.
  • The method of claim 7, wherein the different weighting factors to be applied to each of the different one or more economic inequality attributes is based on user input received from one or more of the clientdevices.
  • An economic inequality rating system comprising:
    • processor configured to execute machine instructions;
    • memory configured to store machine instructions that, when executed, cause the system to perform operations including the following:
      • present a page including a description of an entity, the description including information relevant to the entity’s degree of economic inequality;
      • receive, from each of a plurality of remote client devices, user input relating to an economic inequality rating assigned to the entity by a user of the respective  remote clientdevice;
      • calculate an economic inequality score for the entity based on the received user  input;
      • display the calculated economic inequality score on the page associated with the entity;and
      • repeat the (ii) receiving, (iii) calculating, and (iv) displaying to update the calculated economic inequality score for the entity as additional user input isreceived.
  • The system of claim 9, wherein the entity comprises one or more of a good, a service, a person, an organization, an event, a place, an idea, or anobject.
  • The system of claim 9, wherein the information relevant to the entity’s degree of economic inequality includes one or more of the following economic inequality attributes: (a) geographic origins, (b) associated individuals, (c) associated organizations, (d) profit margin, or (e) associated ethicalpractices.
  • The system of claim 9, wherein the information relevant to the entity’s degree of economic inequality includes at least one economic inequality attribute other than or in addition to the following: (a) geographic origins, (b) associated individuals, (c) associated organizations, (d) profit margin, or (e) associated ethical practices.
  • The system of claim 12, wherein receiving user input comprises receiving a separate rating value for each of the entity’s one or more economic inequality attributes.
  • The system of claim 13, wherein calculating the economic inequality score comprises computing the score based on each of the separate rating values received for the entity’s one or more of economic inequality attributes.
  • The system of claim 14, wherein computing the economic inequality score based on each of the separate rating values received comprises using a different weighting factor for each of the different one or more economic inequality attributes.
  • The system of claim 15, wherein the different weighting factors to be applied to each of the different one or more economic inequality attributes is based on user input received from one or more of the client devices.


ABSTRACT

A computer-implemented method performed by a host system, the method includes presenting a page including a description of an entity, the description including information relevant to the entity’s degree of economic inequality; receiving, from each of multiple remote client devices, user input relating to an economic inequality rating assigned to the entity by a user of the respective remote client device; calculating an economic inequality score for the entity based on the received user input; displaying the calculated economic inequality score on the page associated with the entity; and repeating the receiving, calculating, and displaying to update the calculated economic inequality score for the entity as additional user input is received. FIG. 1

FIG. 2

FIG. 3

CLICK HERE to return