CLICK HERE to learn more about the EIRA.
However, we at FirstRateCrowd wants to let our members know we fully support JUST Capital and the mission they are trying to accomplish. We highly commend their work and wish them great success. Their program will have a significant impact upon reducing economic inequality which is what we all want. We tip our hat in their direction.
About: "JUST Capital is a nonprofit that provides information and rankings on how large corporations perform on issues that matter most to the public. We give individuals a voice on what really matters to them, and evaluate how companies perform on those issues. The centerpiece of our platform is the JUST Ranking: a ranking of the largest publicly traded companies in the U.S. based on America's definition of "JUST". Our platform, and the research underpinning it, empowers consumers, workers, business leaders, investors - all of us - to make more informed decisions about where to buy, work and invest."
We are all aware that ideas have an enormous amount of power. Surely the idea for an EIRA and a JUST Ranking for corporations fall into this category. Yet, there must be more of these powerful ideas bubbling up in the collective consciousness. Once found, these ideas will be well thought out, planned properly, and effectively implemented so they can provide the solutions we are looking for. Somewhere amongst us are the bright minded individuals capable of providing more of the solutions we so clearly need. If you have a thoughtful and relevant idea, CLICK HERE.
You see, we are fast approaching the end of an era where the pitchforks and torches paradigm will no longer be effective at stopping the wealthy elite. The new quantum computer age looms large and precious little time remains given its exponential rate of growth. Albeit some naysayers and critics proclaim the Singularity will never be fully manifested as conceived, just coming close is daunting enough to say the least.
CLICK HERE to learn why, with the coming Singularity, pitchforks and torches will no longer work to stop the wealthy elite.
Time is of the essence. Let there be no doubt, the single most important aspect we are really battling for here is to control the future, our future. Will we control it or let the wealthy elite control our destiny? Make no mistake, what happens here will determine the outcome of humanity. Whoever controls the Singularity will control the future; will it be them or us? This is why your participation to create the demand and eventual development of the EIRA is so important.
What A Great Idea!
Recent redistribution attempts of wealth and income in the traditional sense of progressive taxation, welfare, philanthropy and other means have been unsuccessful. The gap between the rich and the rest of us is continuing to widen. This is because the standard and conventional methods used by the 99% to improve their economic standing can be thwarted by the extreme concentration of wealth in the hands of the few. There are those wealthy individuals who have the financial means and ability to create the political, legal, and power structures sufficient to dismantle most actions taken by the 99%.
Many of the wealthy few literally regard redistribution as theft. But we at First Rate Crowd do not want to take anything away from them. To the contrary, because we are not giving the revenue to the 1% in the first place with the use of an EIRA, there is nothing to take away from them. We regard what we want to accomplish more as a realignment and redirection rather than a redistribution of wealth in the long-established sense of the word.
First Rate Crowd just wants to practice good capitalistic policy by having the 1% compete for their revenue dollars with an EIRA. If the 1% has a less attractive product then what we offer, the market place will decide who gets the consumer's hard earned dollars. Their product is obviously less attractive because, like so many rejected products,the packaging is flawed. In the case of the 1%, their packages are wrapped in the toxic and lethal envelope of societal harm. Their packages come bundled and cloaked with a shorter life expectancy for the rest of us, increases in mental illness, obesity, drug usage, and higher homicide rates. Frankly, the effects of their packaging causes many of the detriments and life stresses contrary to our well being. This noxious and dangerous wrapping is poisoning the very environment in which most of us live. Is this something we really wish to purchase? I think not.
In contrast, an EIRA would offer individuals a reasoned choice to select a product of superior quality for a similar price. People should not have to choose a defective product when there are so many other quality product available. We at FirstRateCrowd merely want to make the invisible hand of the economy work for us; we consider this a less toxic approach and good capitalistic policy.
Upon first contact with the material, I tried to wrap my mind around the concept of an EIRA but it became stunned as if the gears of thought had stopped revolving. It was a real logjam of sorts, one of those awkward blank spaces of time, until a thought finally evolved. With a grin on my face I remembered thinking, "If this is true, then we may actually have a practical way to stop economic inequality."
My mind quickly swarmed over the idea as I thought, "What would happen if those of us in the 99% in the USA actually had this app?" "It would mean we could transfer billions of dollars back to the 99% in short order." Then my thoughts leapt to, "What if everyone in the 99% around the world had this app?" "It would mean we could rapidly transfer trillion of dollars that would normally go to the 1% back to the 99%." My grin quickly turned into a grand smile as all sorts of familiar cliches sprang into my head from "Oh happy day," and "A new day has dawned," to "It's alive!"
I started to think about the various attributes needed to be included about items in order to create such a rating system. This included information related to 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 corresponding ethical practices (e.g., whether child or slave labor is used to produce or deliver the entity).
Still, there were confounding variables to consider such as supply chain issues and those of manufacturing origination. For example, many times a product can be made by a manufacturer but the manufacturer also is a part of a larger and different named company actually sponsoring the product. Each of these companies has its own set of attributes that must be weighed into the decision making equation. Finally, when the product does end up in a brick & mortar showroom promoting the product or a catalogue, this is many times through a third party company which must also be factored into the mix.
Other variables to be considered soon popped into my mind. How "green" is the company, what is the salary of the CEO relative to the line worker, what is the actual corporate structure of the organization and its level of inclusiveness to worker concerns and profit sharing, I considered the direction of their lobbying activities, lawsuit involvement, and philanthropic activities, (both truly helpful or a veneer for advertisement as a smokescreen to offset other negative publicity.)
Overall I realize that Companies are not islands unto themselves and this affects their ultimate impact upon the planet. With respect to the Robert's Court and the Supreme Court decision of Citizen United, where Corporations are now considered people, I suspect the public will demand a large amount of social and environmental attributes be taken into account of our newly anthropomorphized brethren.
I focused my thoughts on how the final inequality score would be weighted and how it would be changed in a timely manner should a company change their behavior for the better or for the worse. It would need to be flexible and responsive system.
My individual inequality rating attributes mentioned above are merely exemplary. I am sure others will have their own view as to what should be included to formulate the final rating. Essentially any other attribute-whether different from or additional to those I listed-could be considered in an overall analysis.
Although in theory any individual could rate any product or service based upon their own internal compass, in practice it is more likely, and arguably would be much more useful, to have "specialists" in various areas provide the data for such a decision. 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 a host platform to generate the final inequality score.Guidelines can be set up by the community as to what weight to give the manufacturer, associated organizations, and associated individuals or other aspects of the rating. These guidelines will include the editing and changing of ratings overtime as the variables change. This includes weighing attributes by those individuals in the 1% who are supportive of the 99% in a more favorable light than those hostile to our cause.
At a somewhat later date, I allowed my mind to delve more into the mundane yet common process of how we currently make our economic choices. Pedestrian at best, this process is something we all do on a regular basis and points out the useful functionality of the EIRA to our cause.
Members of the general public often narrowed down their buying choices to several options before make a final decision. This is especially true for large ticket items such as cars, homes or computers. We usually do this by visiting a store and asking questions of a sales person there or by consulting other sources of available information first. The sales people (or other informational sources) can generally provide descriptive information about products or services themselves. But typically they do not provide information useful in making inequality rating decisions (e.g., identity of the real manufacturing chain, country of origin where the majority of profits will be allocated to, associated individuals and their 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 to them. To the contrary, access to this information is severely delinquent.
This is where the handheld Economic Inequality Rating App comes in. Imagine a consumer desiring to purchase a high end computer who wants to first narrowed down his or her selection to two different options. Before making a decision, the consumer typically will consult a variety of informational sources such as Consumer Reports journal, specific trade magazines, a rating website, or the like. We have all been here before. Assume further that all the available information reveals the two computers options have roughly the same features, quality, styling, price point, and other decision making criteria important to the consumer. Consequently, the consumer's ultimate decision may be efficient relative to the their personal needs but severely insufficient and arbitrary relative to one's social economic inequality obligation.
But the Economic Inequality Rating App, which gives inequality ratings scores to the two different computer options, will provide the consumer with important critical information derived from a database based upon sophisticated expert input. This will immediately make available to the consumer which of the two product or service computer options better supports the 99% compared to the I%.
Everything considered, a dizzying array of complexity and opaqueness can be distilled down to just one number on a scale of zero to I00 for any product or service comparison with an Economic Inequality Rating App. The consumer then has an easy, convenient, and accurate method to make an informed economic decision. A lower numbered product or service will be rewarded with our purchase and those with a higher number will be shunned. It is a guaranteed method whereby those of us in the 99% can exert our collective power over those in the I % for our own benefit.
My mind has been tickled pink since thinking about the concept and continues to do giddy cartwheels down the aisles of commercial consumerism just contemplating its potential. I hope you have a similar experience.
Like Doctor A it took a bit of time for my neurons to digest the concept of the EIRA. Part of this was because the concept had the potential for such a powerful effect but was also so simple. When I first watched the video on how it works I remembered them saying we could redirect revenue from the 1% back to the 99%. It also said we would not have to change the tax laws or vote anyone into office. All we had to do was to use the app. Then something in my mind said, “Bingo”! This was like when I first won a jackpot in Las Vegas (Note: I was just a kid back then playing the nickel slots on a one armed bandit but it was still a great feeling when that nickle jackpot paid off and all of those coins came rushing out of the machine.) Then I remembered thinking, what if everyone’s mind in the 99% also had a Bingo moment. “Whoa Nellie.” I tried to reign in my rushing thoughts but they kept racing forward to “This is it, the revolution has begun.”
I was too young to take part in many of the Vietnam war protests but I do remember reading about some of the boycotts. One still stands out in my mind quite well. There was a large grocery chain in my town supporting the war effort. The protesters would take turns shopping there and loaded up their shopping carts to the brim with many small items. When it finally came to be their turn at the checkout registers, they would say they forgot to bring their cash and needed to go get a check from their car. Of course they never returned. The market was stuck putting all of the items back. Quite a few people would rotate through the various stores doing this which caused the market to spin their wheels returning all the items. Financially it must have had an effect because shortly thereafter the grocery chain changed its stance on the war to a more neutral position.First Rate Crowd just wants to practice good capitalistic policy by having the 1% compete for their revenue dollars with an EIRA. If the 1% has a less attractive product then what we offer, the market place will decide who gets the consumer's hard earned dollars. Their product is obviously less attractive because, like so many rejected products,the packaging is flawed. In the case of the 1%, their packages are wrapped in the toxic and lethal envelope of societal harm. Their packages come bundled and cloaked with a shorter life expectancy for the rest of us, increases in mental illness, obesity, drug usage, and higher homicide rates. Frankly, the effects of their packaging causes many of the detriments and life stresses contrary to our well being. This noxious and dangerous wrapping is poisoning the very environment in which most of us live. Is this something we really wish to purchase? I think not.
The point is, boycotts do work.
If the EIRA was to be developed and work as described, it would surely be a quantum leap above most boycotts I have ever seen. It certainly gets my vote.
From my college days I learned Adam Smith was the father of modern capitalism and was a firm believer in a free market economy. But at least he understood the suffering the inequality created as evidenced by his quotes. Compare this to conservative Republicans today who service the elite and turn a blind eye to the suffering they cause.
You sure do not hear that coming from the mouth of Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell and even if you did it would not be sincere.“No society can surely be flourishing and happy of which by far the greater part of the numbers are poor and miserable. ”
― Adam Smith
“Wherever there is great property, there is great inequality.”
― Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
“It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”
― Adam Smith
I just read an article earlier today in Politico, 02-19-18, about Facebook wanting to mine their own data to find out why there is so much economic inequality in America. Really? Do we actually need another study as to why it exists instead of what needs to be done about it. If Facebook was to fund the EIRA then they wouldn't need to waste their time doing studies like this. Instead, the problem would be solved. My guess as to why they are really doing this research is so they can target their marketing better to make more money. This has nothing to do with solving inequality. I already boycott Facebook by not using their site and I hope the EIRA gets up and running so I can join a boycott that would truly be effective against the 1%.
“Artificial intelligence is the future, not only for Russia but for all humankind,” he said, via live video beamed to 16,000 selected schools. “Whoever becomes the leader in this sphere will become the ruler of the world.”
https://www.wired.com/story/for-superpo ... arms-race/
Simonite continues by conveying his view that AI is the new global arms race and this is how it stacks up for the winners an the losers,
Author Zoltan Istvan in 2015 brings the conflict into even sharper focus with his Mother Board article, What If One Country Achieves the Singularity First? The possibility of a nationalistic singularity poses some scary ethical questions.https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/arti ... rity-firstPutin’s advice is the latest sign of an intensifying race among Russia, China, and the US to accumulate military power based on artificial intelligence. All three countries have proclaimed intelligent machines as vital to the future of their national security.
“The US, Russia, and China are all in agreement that artificial intelligence will be the key technology underpinning national power in the future,” says Gregory C. Allen, a fellow at nonpartisan think tank the Center for a New American Security. He coauthored a recent report commissioned by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence that concluded artificial intelligence could shake up armed conflict as significantly as nuclear weapons did.
In July, China’s State Council released a detailed strategy designed to make the country “the front-runner and global innovation center in AI” by 2030. It includes pledges to invest in R&D that will “through AI elevate national defense strength and assure and protect national security.”
The US, widely recognized as home to the most advanced and vibrant AI development, doesn’t have a prescriptive roadmap like China’s. But for several years the Pentagon has been developing a strategy known as the “Third Offset,” intended to give the US, through weapons powered by smart software, the same sort of advantage over potential adversaries that it once held in nuclear bombs and precision-guided weapons. In April, the Department of Defense established the Algorithmic Warfare Cross-Functional Team to improve use of AI technologies such as machine vision across the Pentagon.
Russia’s smaller tech industry, compared with the US and China, puts it at a disadvantage in the AI arms race. But it retains a strong academic tradition in science and technology. And advanced technology isn’t everything—it also matters what you do with what you’ve got.
In March 2015, I published a Motherboard article titled A Global Arms Race to Create a Superintelligent AI is Looming. The article argued a concept I call the AI Imperative, which says that nations should do all they can to develop artificial intelligence, because whichever country produces an AI first will likely end up ruling the world indefinitely, since that AI will be able to control all other technologies and their development on the planet.
Fast forward 25 years in the future, and some experts like Kurzweil believe we might already be able to upload our entire consciousness into a machine. I tend to agree with him, and I even think it could occur sooner, such as in 15 to 20 years time.
Here's the crux: If an AI exclusively belonged to one nation (which is likely to happen), and the technology of merging human brains and machines grows sufficiently (which is also likely to happen), then you could possibly end up with one nation controlling the pathways into the singularity.
As insane as this sounds, it's possible that the controlling nation could start offering its citizens the opportunity to be uploaded fully into machines, in preparation to enter the singularity.
Worse, what if a government chose only to allow the super wealthy to pursue its doorway to the singularity—to plug directly into its superintelligent AI? Or what if the government only gave access to high-ranked party officials? For example, how would Russia's Vladimir Putin deal with this type of power? And it is a tremendous power. After all, you'd be connected to a superintelligence and would likely be able to rewrite all the nuclear arms codes in the world, stop dams and power plants from operating, and create a virus to shut down Wi-Fi worldwide, if you wanted.
It comes down to the age old question of who will control the controllers. History has shown what happens when these individuals in control deem themselves more righteous and deserving than others. The world's timeline is filled with injustice and now we have a developing situation where God like control will exist. In the wrong hands, we may see a vengeful and wrathful God. This must be controlled now and the only way out, as far as I am concerned, is to put the power back into the hands of the many rather than just the few. The EIRA is the only mechanism I have heard of, other than an outright bloody war with the wealthy elite, to accomplish this effectively and peacefully.Such moral leanings and concepts that someone or group could control, patent, or steal the singularity ultimately lead us to another imperative: the Singularity Disparity.
The first person or group to experience the singularity will protect and preserve the power and intelligence they've acquired in the singularity process—which ultimately means they will do whatever is necessary to lessen the power and intelligence accumulation of the singularity experience for others. That way the original Singularitarians can guarantee their power and existence indefinitely.
If the singularity occurs like this, then, on the surface, there's little ethically wrong with a national or private singularity, because other nations or groups could implement their own in time. However, the larger issue is: How would people on Earth protect themselves from someone or some group in the singularity who decides the Earth and its inhabitants aren't worth keeping around, or worse, wants to enslave everyone on Earth? There's no easy answer to this, but the question itself makes me frown upon the singularity idea, in exactly the same way I frown upon an omnipotent God and heaven. I don't like any other single entity or group having that much possible power over another.
It all comes down to the same old question of who will control the controllers. History has shown what happens when these individuals in control deem themselves more righteous and deserving than others. The world's history is filled with injustice and now we have a developing situation where God like control will exist. In the wrong hands, we may see a vengeful and wrathful God. This must be controlled now and the only way out, as far as I am concerned, is to put the power back into the hands of the many rater than just the few. The EIRA is the only mechanism I have heard of, other than an outright war bloody war with the wealthy elite, to accomplish this peacefully.
And we are not alone on this matter that the risks of AI and those who control it are under estimated in a letter to the Financial Times,
From Martyn Thomas, Professor of IT, Gresham College, London, UK, August, 11, 2017, Power rests in the hands of the controllers of AI.
His view is as such,
You can count me in as a cheerleader for the EIRA.Sir, You underestimate the risks from artificial intelligence (Intelligent robots must be trusted by humans, FT View, August 5) but the threat comes less from the technology than from those who have the power to decide where it is used. Like all disruptive technologies, AI transfers power from the weak to the strong, making the rich richer and the strong stronger.
A recent Royal Society report explains that many machine learning systems are black boxes even to their developers; the systems cannot explain their decisions and their behaviour is complex and learnt, not designed and programmed. The report calls for research into how machine learning systems can be verified so that we can have confidence in their behaviour, how they can be protected from cyber attack and how they can be designed so that humans can work with them safely and effectively?
Despite these unsolved problems, the use of machine learning and other AI systems is growing rapidly. Companies want the increased profits. Politicians want the investment and tax revenues. The decisions to introduce AI are being made by powerful (and often multinational) companies. How will those who distrust AI be able to take back control?
Professor of IT, Gresham College
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest