FirstRateCrowd's EIRA

As the single most important technology to counter the negative effects of economic inequality, we need to create the demand for its development and use now.

CLICK HERE to learn more about the EIRA.

Posted on: » Mon Sep 03, 2018 6:15 pm #11

User avatar
Doctor A
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:30 pm
REFERENCING: Sterling Volunteer, Post #10, Posted Jun 5, 2018
Here is the bottom line from Jessica's post,
The point is, boycotts do work.
Short of a revolution, which are more often than not usually fast moving violent events, a boycott via the EIRA is our most valuable tool to use.

Re: FirstRateCrowd's EIRA

Post by Doctor A » Mon Sep 03, 2018 6:15 pm

Income Inequality Is A Destroyer Of Civilizations. It Can Be Mitigated By Policy But Only Leveled By Upheaval. For This Reason Political Policy Will Not Stop Income And Economic Inequality But It Can Be Stopped With The Economic Inequality Rating App.

Many of us are politically active but that is not sufficient by itself to stop income and economic inequality. Economic inequality is an extremely powerful driving force that annihilates many of the gains produced by political policy. For all the energy and hope we exert politically, it is just not enough by itself to counter the negative outcomes generated by the wealthy elite. We keep slipping further and further behind.

The Economic Inequality Rating App is a new way to counter the impact of income and economic inequality that transcends the political process and its inability through policy to counter the ravaging impact of the wealthy elite's grip upon us.

Why you ask should we support First Rate Crowd's Economic Inequality Rating App?

The answer is based upon history.

Stanford Professor Walter Scheidel is quite frank when he writes about income inequality in his new book, "The Great Leveler."
"Income Inequality is a Destroyer of Civilizations"

The Professor says, "income inequality can be mitigated by policy, but is only leveled by upheaval - produced by war, state collapse, or revolution"
An interview with the professor by Jack Thomas, Published in The Intellectualist on May 12th, 2018 ... tions.html

But there is another way; it is a boycott as per First Rate Crowd's EIRA.

If you think there are not enough policy ideas out there to go around, and as the professor states, will only mitigate income inequality, here is a listing form the Washington Post, Wonkblog Analysis

How 12 experts would end inequality if they ran America
by Jeff Stein April 6, 2018 ... -america/?

Imagine if you had complete control of the U.S. government: What one thing would you do to reduce the country's staggering economic inequality?

I. Massive expansion of local housing stock (Will Wilkinson, Niskanen Center)
II. Universal access to child care, funded by a tax on capital (Heather Boushey, Washington Center for Equitable Growth)
III. Ship the 1 percent to Venezuela (David Azerrad, Heritage Foundation)
IV. A big boost to union rights, universal social wealth fund (Matt Bruenig, People's Policy Project)
V. Create a trust for every American baby (Darrick Hamilton, the New School)
VI. Pick up the antitrust stick and wield it (Marshall Steinbaum, Roosevelt Institute)
VII. Dramatically expand Social Security (Valerie Wilson, Economic Policy Institute);
VIII. Give every American a federal savings account (Ernie Tedeschi, former Treasury economist)
IX. Rein in Wall Street, crack down on white-collar crime (Stephanie Kelton, Stony Brook University)
X. A national infrastructure program, funded by the 1 percent (Robert Frank, Cornell University)
XI. Get government out of the way, repeal rules and regulations (Grover Norquist, Americans for Tax Reform)
XII. A federal tax credit for first-time home buyers (Signe-Mary McKernan, Urban Institute)
The other ways to remedy the situation, through war, disease, state collapse, or revolution, are quite unpalatable.

As professor Walter Scheidel points our,
"Are mass violence and catastrophes the only forces that can seriously decrease economic inequality?"

"To judge by thousands of years of history, the answer is yes. Tracing the global history of inequality from the Stone Age to today, Walter Scheidel shows that inequality never dies peacefully. Inequality declines when carnage and disaster strike and increases when peace and stability return. The Great Leveler is the first book to chart the crucial role of violent shocks in reducing inequality over the full sweep of human history around the world."

"Ever since humans began to farm, herd livestock, and pass on their assets to future generations, economic inequality has been a defining feature of civilization. Over thousands of years, only violent events have significantly lessened inequality. The "Four Horsemen" of leveling—mass-mobilization warfare, transformative revolutions, state collapse, and catastrophic plagues—have repeatedly destroyed the fortunes of the rich. Scheidel identifies and examines these processes, from the crises of the earliest civilizations to the cataclysmic world wars and communist revolutions of the twentieth century. Today, the violence that reduced inequality in the past seems to have diminished, and that is a good thing. But it casts serious doubt on the prospects for a more equal future. An essential contribution to the debate about inequality, The Great Leveler provides important new insights about why inequality is so persistent—and why it is unlikely to decline anytime soon."
Certainly the time for action is now with the Economic Inequality Rating App. Sitting on the sidelines is no longer an option.

A Guardian article by Michael Savage, April 7th, 2018 indicates the trajectory we are currently on with the headline, "Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030" ... point-2030

I also like what Jessica said in her post #10 under the Community Business Venture when she responded as to why the EIRA is so important?
So there you have it, the age old process of the rich using their power to become even richer while cementing their control over the rest of us for their own benefit. This in their minds is inevitable and they act as if it is their ordained privilege.

I for one do not agree. It is neither inevitable nor ordained. Rather it is a manufactured situation and anything manufactured is not guaranteed to last if we are willing to do something about it.

Let us not forget what this evil can do to us. We need only to look to our future as a reflection of our not so distant past.
“This work was strictly voluntary, but any animal who absented himself from it would have his rations reduced by half.”
― George Orwell, Animal Farm

“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—for ever.”
― George Orwell, 1984

Although the possible horrors of the George Orwell books were written in the past, they are a prescient reminder of what will happen to the face of humanity should we not act. This is why I became an active member of First Rate Crowd and support the Community Business Venture. It is my way to guard against repeating the atrocities of the past and my bridge to a brighter future. Without hesitation I say what happens on this website is consequential. We are at the precipice and will lose the fight against this cruel tyranny unless action is taken. Donald Trump is the face of this tyranny. It is important we come together as a community to stop him now.
Times Referenced: 2

Posted on: » Mon Oct 08, 2018 6:25 pm #12

User avatar
Sterling Volunteer
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 6:15 pm
REFERENCING: Doctor A, Post #11, Posted Sep 4, 2018
Income Inequality Is A Destroyer Of Civilizations. It Can Be Mitigated By Policy But Only Leveled By Upheaval. For This Reason Political Policy Will Not Stop Income And Economic Inequality But It Can Be Stopped With The Economic Inequality Rating App.

Re: FirstRateCrowd's EIRA

Post by Sterling Volunteer » Mon Oct 08, 2018 6:25 pm

Strong detrimental shock waves to economic inequality will ensue now that four powerful corners of the American political square have been cemented shut because of Brett Kavanaughs' confirmation to the Supreme Court. The Presidency, House of Representatives, Senate, and today's Supreme Court are all insulated from liberal control. Obviously our political system is compromised to a point where the minority party has the leverage to assail the liberal majority. This is an unprecedented level of political power in modern times.

For those of you who hope to impeach Kavanaugh, if the Democrats regain control of the House of Representatives after the November elections, this process is fraught with problems to actually removing him from the bench. Impeachment is merely a charge against an individual and the voting to remove him from the court, should he be found guilty, resides with the Senate. Unless something horrendous comes forth, other than just he perjured himself or was at drunken parties where rapes took place, getting the Senate to a two thirds vote for his removal is nearly impossible unless the Democrats also take the Senate.

Power begets power and a five to four conservative court vote will ensure the demise of Roe v Wade, the passage of laws to suppress minority voting rights, and a continuation of the gerrymandering process as a means for Republicans to stay in control. Are you tired of the political process yet?

Importantly, control of the country's political levers allows the Republicans to maintain their authority over tax policies in favor of the rich and hence the remainder of the population will continue to suffer from unabated economic inequality.

Doctor A in his previous post was correct when he presented the Economic Inequality Rating App as an alternative to putting so much energy into the political process with the following facts,
Stanford Professor Walter Scheidel is quite frank when he writes about income inequality in his new book, "The Great Leveler." "Income Inequality is a Destroyer of Civilizations"

The Professor says, "income inequality can be mitigated by policy, but is only leveled by upheaval - produced by war, state collapse, or revolution"
Our collective psyche has been indelibly imprinted from grade school on that this path of voting in political policy is the way to proceed and has made us blind to other alternatives. With regards to economic inequality, it is not the correct course of action. In fact, "mitigated by policy," the outcome of the political process, is both a slow and an uphill battle. Furthermore, Doctor A's post also presents,
“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—for ever.”
― George Orwell, 1984

Well, maybe not quite forever, but nevertheless I for one am tired of having my face stamped on which is why I am focusing my attention upon the Economic Inequality Rating App.

Times Referenced: 0

Posted on: » Sat Nov 10, 2018 4:36 pm #13

User avatar
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2017 3:03 pm
REFERENCING: Doctor A, Post #11, Posted Sep 4, 2018
Income Inequality Is A Destroyer Of Civilizations. It Can Be Mitigated By Policy But Only Leveled By Upheaval. For This Reason Political Policy Will Not Stop Income And Economic Inequality But It Can Be Stopped With The Economic Inequality Rating App.

Re: FirstRateCrowd's EIRA

Post by Jessica » Sat Nov 10, 2018 4:36 pm

Political policy undergoes continuous erosion when it comes to correcting economic inequality. Money in politics and regulatory capture (including corporate capture) ensures the wealthy will always comeback into power. The Economic Inequality Rating App is a means to stop this insane never ending process.

Like Sisyphus of Greek mythology who was forced to roll an immense boulder up a hill only for it to roll down when it nears the top, repeating this action for eternity, it is the same with our political battle against the wealthy. For those of us who have lived many decades and have experienced this process first hand, we know the political process is a frustrating and demoralizing cyclic endeavor to control the power of the rich. It is said colloquially that power begets power, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and the rich get richer. So it has been forever.

There are levers of power that sustain this ongoing insane process. Here are just two such levers:

1) Money in politics

© 2018 Scholars Strategy Network
How Money Corrupts American Politics
Benjamin I. Page, Northwestern University ... -politics
the perfectly legal flood of money that pervades American politics has fundamentally corrupting effects.

The effects of money are manifold, subtle, and hard to pin down, but a number of pathways of influence can be laid out. Most are based on judgments about the best available evidence, short of irrefutable proof. But on certain key points the quantitative evidence is fairly conclusive. Political scientist Gary Jacobson and other scholars have pinned down how monetary advantages affect chances of winning congressional elections Large amounts of money are virtually essential if a candidate is to have any serious chance of winning. Inability to raise big money leads to losing general elections, losing party nominations, or giving up even before getting started. Thus the need to raise money acts as a filter, tending to eliminate public officials who hold certain points of view – even points of view that are popular with most Americans.

The need for money tends to filter out centrist candidates. Most congressional districts are gerrymandered to ensure a big advantage for one party or the other, so that election outcomes are actually decided in low-salience, low-turnout, one-party primary elections. Primaries are usually dominated by ideological party activists and money givers, who tend to hold extreme views and to reject all but the purest partisan candidates. This contributes to party polarization and legislative gridlock in Congress.

The need for money filters out candidates on the economic left. Democratic as well as Republican candidates have to raise big money, most of which comes from economically successful entrepreneurs and professionals who tend to hold rather conservative views on taxes, social welfare spending, and economic regulation. As a result, few candidates whose views are not broadly acceptable to the affluent are nominated or elected.

The quest for money tilts candidates' priorities and policy stands. Countless hours spent grubbing for money from affluent contributors changes candidates' priorities and sense of constituent needs. As they speak with potential donors, candidates hear repeatedly about resentment of progressive taxes and "wasteful" social spending. Special tax breaks for corporations and hedge fund managers start to sound reasonable.

Affluent citizens get extra influence by turning out to vote, working in campaigns, and contacting officials. Campaign contributions are not the only way in which affluent people get involved in politics; these same people tend to be active in other ways too, underscoring their importance to candidates.

Money can tip the outcome of close elections. Money spent on media, organizing, and turnout tends to increase vote totals, giving a significant advantage to candidates favored by money givers.

Money buys access to officials. When big contributors contact officials they tend to get attention. Their economic resources enable them to get a hearing, to offer help with information and expertise – even to draft bills. Research shows that these processes boost the influence of the affluent on the policy topics and ideas officeholders consider, biasing the public agenda toward the concerns of the affluent.

The quest for re-election money affects officials' priorities and policy stands. From the moment they win office, candidates look ahead to the money they must raise for reelection, and this is bound to steal time from official duties and slant their attention toward constituents who are substantial donors.

2) Regulatory capture (and corporate capture)


"Regulatory capture is a form of government failure which occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or political concerns of special interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating.[1] When regulatory capture occurs, the interests of firms or political groups are prioritized over the interests of the public, leading to a net loss for society. Government agencies suffering regulatory capture are called "captured agencies"

"Likelihood of regulatory capture is a risk to which an agency is exposed by its very nature.[6] This suggests that a regulatory agency should be protected from outside influence as much as possible. Alternatively, it may be better to not create a given agency at all lest the agency become victim, in which case it may serve its regulated subjects rather than those whom the agency was designed to protect. A captured regulatory agency is often worse than no regulation, because it wields the authority of government. However, increased transparency of the agency may mitigate the effects of capture. Recent evidence suggests that, even in mature democracies with high levels of transparency and media freedom, more extensive and complex regulatory environments are associated with higher levels of corruption (including regulatory capture).[7]"

Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation
The Corporate Capture of the United States
Posted by the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance & Financial Regulation, on
Thursday, January 5, 2012 Editor ... ed-states/
American corporations today are like the great European monarchies of yore: They have the power to control the rules under which they function and to direct the allocation of public resources. This is not a prediction of what’s to come; this is a simple statement of the present state of affairs. Corporations have effectively captured the United States: its judiciary, its political system, and its national wealth, without assuming any of the responsibilities of dominion. Evidence is everywhere.
The “smoking gun” is CEO pay. Compensation is an expression of concentrated power — of enterprise power concentrated in the chief executive officer and of national power concentrated in corporations.
This is the essence of “capture” – CEOs are enriched, while all other corporate constituencies, including government, are left with liabilities. A relatively few autocrats have taken control over the policies and wealth allocation of the United States.
The financial power of American corporations now controls every stage of politics — legislative, executive, and ultimately judicial. With its January 2010 decision in the Citizens United case, the Supreme Court removed all legal restraints on the extent of corporate financial involvement in politics, a grotesque decision that can have only one effect: maximizing corporate – not national — value. Today’s CEOs have been granted the power to direct political payments and organize PAC programs to achieve objectives entirely in their own self-interest, and they have been quick to use it.
Capture has been further implemented through the extensive lobbying power of corporations. Abraham Lincoln’s warning about “corporations enthroned” and Dwight Eisenhower’s about the “unwarranted influence by the military/industrial complex” have been fully realized in our own time. Reported lobbying expenditures have risen annually, to $3.5 billion in 2010. Half of the Senators and 42 percent of House members who left Congress between 1998 and 2004 became lobbyists, as did 310 former appointees of George W. Bush and 283 of Bill Clinton.
Capture has placed the most powerful CEOs above the reach of the law and beyond its effective enforcement. Extensive evidence of Wall Street’s critical involvement in the financial crisis notwithstanding, not a single senior Wall Street executive has lost his job, and pay levels have been rigorously maintained even when, as noted earlier, TARP payments had to be refinanced in order to remove any possible restrictions.
Finally, capture has been perpetuated through the removal of property “off shore,” where it is neither regulated nor taxed. The social contract between Americans and their corporations was supposed to go roughly as follows: In exchange for limited liability and other privileges, corporations were to be held to a set of obligations that legitimatized the powers they were given. But modern corporations have assumed the right to relocate to different jurisdictions, almost at will, irrespective of where they really do business, and thus avoid the constraints of those obligations.
Like the epic battle between hyenas and lions, this political fighting for economic control between the rich and those that have not is viscous and enduring. This is madness. Let us put an end to this nonsense by supporting the Economic Inequality Rating App. It creates a new environment not controlled by these politically generated forces and can stop economic inequality. The political process is ineffective in creating long term results on our behalf whereas the Economic Inequality Rating App (EIRA) bypasses the pitfalls of politics and directly solves the problem of inequality.
Times Referenced: 0

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest