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 and how it will save humanity by stopping inequality.
CLICK HERE to watch a video on the EIRA.

Posted on: » Mon Mar 04, 2019 12:11 pm #21

User avatar
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2017 3:03 pm
REFERENCING: janebird21, Post #20, Posted Mar 4, 2019
Elizabeth Warren isn't the only one with plans to tax the rich. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez suggests a 70% tax on income for anyone making above $10M in the US and it's forcing even the Republicans to talk about it.


Re: FirstRateCrowd's EIRA

Post by Jessica » Mon Mar 04, 2019 12:11 pm

Elizabeth Warren and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez were not the first to want to tax the rich. FDR proposed a 100% tax on the rich and finally settled for a 94% marginal tax rate.

Daily Kos
FDR's Proposed Marginal Tax Rate Was 100%
chloris creator ,Sunday February 24, 2013 ... te-Was-100
Roosevelt’s debt ceiling battle actually began right after Pearl Harbor. The nation needed a revenue boost to wage and win the war.

FDR and his New Dealers wanted to finance the war equitably, with stiff tax rates on high incomes. How stiff? FDR proposed a 100 percent top tax rate. At a time of “grave national danger,” Roosevelt told Congress in April 1942, “no American citizen ought to have a net income, after he has paid his taxes, of more than $25,000 a year.” That would be about $350,000 in today’s dollars.

FDR "settled" for a marginal tax rate of 94%.

Makes today's super-wealthy seem pretty whiny and greedy, doesn't it?
If I recall correctly, FDR privately told the rich to pay up or the rest of the country would revolt and turn to communism; then the elite would loose all their wealth and power. By putting their collective nuts in a vise and slowly squeezing, he made them pony up.

Times Referenced: 0

Posted on: » Wed Mar 06, 2019 2:57 pm #22

User avatar
Sterling Volunteer
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 67
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 » Wed Mar 06, 2019 2:57 pm


Doctor A presents a new and compelling model for activists fighting against inequality. I now understand why my past actions, so filled with youthful exuberance, were ineffective in bringing about the change I yearned for the world with my advocacy at the local, state, and national levels. As I now take a panoramic view of the world many decades later, it little resembles the world changes I so vehemently fought for. What went wrong?

Doctor A tells us what went wrong and how we can remedy our past mistakes. He presents the four basic mechanisms the elite use to thwart us. After reading his post as to why we cannot win our battles against inequality with the outdated strategies and tactics we were employing, I now realize I was wrong in my assumptions about the powerful forces countermanding any actions me and my fellow activists had taken. Any gains we made were merely only temporary respites against the wealthy elites. A more realistically and honest assessment indicates we continually lost ground to their overwhelming power. After all of those years of fighting for justice and a progressive humanized world, we have been beaten. Perhaps you have a similar view as you look around at the state of the world today. If you are like me, it is probably not the kind of world you envisioned or want as a future.

The original post is found on the website under Donald Trump and the Republican Party, then under the subheading of Brain Structure as post #28. I believe this knowledge is so crucial to our understanding of our plight that I am presenting it here in its entirety under this topic so it will receive a wider audience. A full understanding of the mechanisms holding us back is essential to our moving forward against economic inequality. It is paramount we all understand where we have failed in the past; this way we can take a new tact in a different direction allowing all of our sails to be filled.

Doctor A's original post

There needs to be a new direction of thought and action away from organizational and individualistic centered ideology towards that of a unified front to stop economic inequality. Conservative's brain structure, policy and regulatory capture by the rich, money in politics, flaws in capitalism, and movement nearing the rise of a technological singularity will all play a role in crushing any hope for humanity unless this new direction is achieved. Until that time, it will be business as usual with the last two human generations witnessing ever increasing economic inequality in the USA being proof positive that the old way of thinking is outdated and outright ineffective. What follows is a compilation of four basic mechanisms taken from the FirstRateCrowd website which are instrumental in enslaving our thoughts and actions unless we change.

1) Conservative minded brain structure

We fancy ourselves like Rodin's statue "the thinker" as thoughtful and pensive individuals grappling with the great ideas of the world. Even if a lesser ape was to assume the same anatomical position as that of the statue, we know we are the true masters of our own thoughts and hence our own destiny. Not so for the lesser apes. Yet neuroscience research points out that only about five percent of our brain activity is at a conscious level, the remainder remains in the murky world of the subconscious.

Through millions of years, evolution has created us this way so much so that our thoughts and hence actions are dependent largely upon the physical structure of our brain. We are not nearly so smart and clever as we think we are. Rather we are to a large extent slaves to the will of this biological structure. If an anatomical brain structure is present we think and behave one way and conversely, if it is absent, we think and behave quite differently.

It is mostly this connection to our evolutionary past that makes us who we are today as either conservative or liberal with each having a different brain structure. In the biological cauldron of time we developed and diversified into these two major groupings each adapted to a unique way of dealing with the world. This is the reason for the plight we find ourselves in today; two major groupings seeing and acting differently to the same stimulus. Indeed, even just the choice of selecting this website was largely dependent upon these two groupings and the underlying structure of the brain.

This then brings us to Janebird21's previous post #27 which will automatically and forcefully create massive fear in the minds' of conservatives due to their brain structure when she says,

"Instead of welfare programs What if policymakers looked at fair taxes and wealth distribution. What if that 1% paid their share of taxes and this was redistributed?"

You can test this for yourself by presenting these concepts to known rabid conservatives and then monitor their reactions as I have done. Fear usually manifests itself either as (A) not getting what an individual wants or perceives they should receive or( B) by perceiving to loose something they already have. I can almost guarantee the terminology used by Janebird21 will end with an angry and fear based response from the conservative that you are trying to steal from them all they have worked so hard for and justly belongs to them as a God given inalienable right. Furthermore, if you try to persuade the conservative towards a more balanced approach with reason, logic, and facts, this will only further anger them with an even more palpable sense of fear driving their anger.

The main biological mechanism underlying this fear is presented in my post #20 under this same thread and repeated here,

Brain Structure Drives The Consequent Effects Of Economic Inequality where Donald Trump's reptilian brain (amygdala) deprives oxygen to the frontal lobes.

Many times I will say the conservative brain structure "short circuits" their ability to reason and process facts in an attempt to ameliorate the fear." as indicated in my previous post with the quote,

"We know the brain structure of Republicans is different than that of Democrats. Functional MRI's indicate your amygdala, that structure of the limbic system which deals with emotional reactions, is enhanced. That is to say, anxiety and fear play a larger size role in how you process information. To put it bluntly, it short circuits your ability to reason and process facts in an attempt to ameliorate the fear."

The wording "short circuit" is not the most appropriate and here is a more nuanced and scientific approach as to what really happens.

Psychological look at how Trump's 'reptilian brain' motivates his actions | Opinion
By Deborah Stuckey Mulhern, Ph.D. Posted Jun 22, 2016 ... inion.html

Instead, Donald Trump is a slave to the fear-driven operating system of the amgydala -- a small almond shaped structure that lies at the nexus of the three levels of the brain and is derived from the reptilian brain. Trump's power lies in his ability to activate this same operating system in his followers.

He has fine-tuned the skill of activating the primitive fear of the enemy or the "other" with speech and facial expressions -- the two things that most interest the amygdala. The amygdala knows no nuance. It sees nothing but bad and good, enemy or ally.
And it is primed to see the former everywhere. When the amygdala takes over, the lower, reptilian brain is activated. And when this brain is activated, reason and sense are irrelevant.

Actually, not just irrelevant but physiologically embargoed. When the lower survival brain states are activated, blood flow is shunted away from the more highly evolved frontal lobe making thought and conscious decision difficult, if not impossible. This is the state of mind in which Trump speaks to his followers and the state of mind that he activates in them. That is why his words don't matter; only his emotions do. Logic and reason are silenced when the lower brain gains dominance. He and his followers are resonating with fear and anger at a pre-mammalian level. It is not a level at which to make decisions, let alone policy.

Deborah Stuckey Mulhern, Ph.D., a Teaneck native, is a clinical psychologist specializing in relationships, self-destructive behaviors and conflict resolution. She earned her master's in clinical psychology from Boston University and bachelor's in political science and psychology from Wesleyan University.

2) Policy or regulatory capture along with money in politics

There are reasons why the political process is ineffective in correcting economic inequality especially in the long term. Sterling, in his post # 12 under the topic First Rate Crowd's EIRA, captures the essence of this unproductive process as he writes,

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.

Jessica, in her post #13 under the same topic, builds upon Sterling's post pointing out flaws in the political process as an effective means to stop economic inequality by writing,

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:

A) 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.

B) 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.

3) Flaws in capitalism, which disproportionately impacts the poor, keep us bound in the status quo.

The home page section of this website, under BASIC CONCEPTS, with the title, "Our Position Paper On Economic Inequality," points out basic flaws in capitalism, with the Economic Inequality Rating App, (EIRA) as a counter balance to traditional capitalism as quoted here,

FirstRateCrowd is the vanguard of reasoned capitalism, leading the way to prevent its own demise. Aspects of our economic system are shattered, providing instability of unprecedented proportion. In the past one hundred years, we have witnessed a major depression, a major recession, and now rampant inequality. These dramatic shifts indicate a flawed system; they certainly are not indicative of a smooth operating and well oiled machine. History is well-equipped with examples of this type of volatility bringing about a precipitous economic system change, a change we do not want. Our crowdsourcing Community, with its power of choice based upon "the wisdom of the crowd," and the Economic Inequality Rating App, (EIRA), can help to remedy these economic failures. By modifying and taking corrective action now, the capitalistic economic system we already have in place can be saved. We can prevent a future catastrophic event from occurring.

The economic system is broken and no longer works for us, yet we do not want to do away with it. Rather, we want to repair it by regulating it in a practical and common-sense way, and make it ours once again; this will change the balance of the inequality equation. Our new form of EIRA provides the crowd a new way to choose its economic outcomes in a more favorable fashion aligned with its own best interests. It is an existential principle of choice in economic matters that allows it a greater freedom in meeting its own needs; this more sovereign position is the liberty we strive for.

Our strategy for creating this new kind of company is to provide individuals in the marketplace choice by using the EIRA; this is a democratic principle. This position will not only allow for more wealth and income to flow to the remainder of us, but will modulate the behavior of the 1% from its eventual self-destructive behavior. We want to emphasize that we do not wish to do away with capitalism. We do, however, wish to regulate and damper the ill effects of its actions by offering people choice. Through this process, we have a means to further democratize the economic landscape, generating a more equitable position for all involved.

There are a few proposed solutions being bantered about in the public domain but they have no realistic chance of being successful in changing the economic inequality landscape. These options, presented by politicians and pundits, are fractured along political and class lines. They are unrealistic and insufficient to meet the needs for true change. Their impotent views and callous indifference to suffering is providing lip-service only. In contrast, our organization presents a concrete and realistic way forward; it is by uniting with us in our endeavor that a realistic and viable change will occur for the common good.

Until we can correct the heretofore mentioned imbalances caused by capitalism, and create a new direction of thought and action, the system will continue to be rigged, and we will continue to be crushed under the boots of the elite. The collapse of capitalism is usually caused by the wealthy creating risky laws to enhance their wealth and is the mindset as to how they operate. Whereas they may get killed in the market, many of us less fortunate literally get killed by economic collapse. Until the imbalance is rectified, it will be the same business as usual in a repetitive cycle of upward fortune followed by downward disasters. Although after each and every disaster new laws are put into place to contain the greed of the wealthy that created the disaster to begin with, these laws are quickly diluted down or repealed all together to favor the wealthy once again. What else can we expect from a legal corporate system that has a primary emphasis on fiduciary laws, that is to say, laws that mandate corporations make money for their stock holders as the basic reason for their very existence.

One has only to couple this with the Robert's Supreme court decision "Citizens United" where Corporations are now considered People to see where this is going. It is clear the very wealthy have been manipulating the court system for the past 30 years to feather their own beds. This is continuing at an unprecedented pace and the trajectory points to more and more control for the corporate elite.

4)The rise of the technological singularity.

The speed and power of the coming technological singularity is unprecedented in human history with its exponentially accelerating future growth predicted; a new approach must be implemented to counter the self-serving affects the wealthy will have upon economic inequality because of this. A new direction must be taken and that requires a new way of thinking.

My post #1 under the topic Economic Inequality: The Singularity, Pitchforks And Torches Will No Longer Be Able To Stop The 1%, expresses my sentiment of a loosing battle with the wealthy as they become more and more entrenched in their control of the technology, and hence, economic inequality.

The coming Quantum Computer Revolution with its associated subjects of the Singularity, will make it impossible to stop the 1% with the outdated modes of pitchforks and torches. The 1% will obviously own the superior computers and robotics. They will gain the ability to hide on the internet never to be caught.

It is obvious only the very rich will be able to afford the Quantum Computers ushering in the Singularity. The following is a quote I found from PC World.

"D-Wave last year introduced the second-generation quantum computer called D-Wave Two which has a “list price north of $10 million,” according a research note from financial firm Sterne Agee on Wednesday. The note had a picture of a D-Wave Two with a list price of $15 million.

I have done a scientific study (Ha...just kidding) by asking my friends if any of them have the means to afford a Quantum Computer and the answer was a resounding "No." Actually, many did not even know what a quantum computer was let alone Kurzweil's concepts on the future of technology.

With access to the fastest and most sophisticated computers in conjunction with changed laws in their favor, the rich will be able to hide in the internet with their Quantum Computers making the decisions for them. We will not be able to catch-up to them as they continue to upgrade and expand their technology nor will we be able to even locate them. Just try poking a pitchfork at your computer and see what happens.

I build upon this again in my post #6,

The Creation Of New Laws Developed From And In Response To The Coming Singularity Will Favor The Rich. This Will Create A New Class Of Inequality And Precipitate Increased Human Rights Abuse Disproportionately Upon The Poor. The Initial High Costs Of The Neurological And Technological Brain Adaptions Will Be A Major Factor Contributing To This New Form Of Inequality.

I frame this narrative with the following two prominent mechanisms,

Unfortunately, because the creation of new laws is mostly based upon past actions, it almost always lags behind technological developments. As we draw closer to the Singularity, this time differential between past actions and the creation of new laws may very well decrease due to new technology in the legal arena itself. But overall, in absolute terms, it will take more time to develop these laws. This is because the new laws will need to be developed in some ratio to the exponentially accelerating new technology being developed. One can envision a legal system not capable of keeping up with the dizzying array of new social implications needing regulation and control. Of course there will be technological developments in the legal arena itself to aid in the processing of this technological onslaught. But one can see a scenario where even the new legal technology will be overwhelmed at some point. With an absolute increase in time needed to process the new technology, forms of human rights abuse will multiply against those individuals least capable of defending themselves.

Perhaps worse yet, the initial inability of the poor to merge with the new technology due to prohibitive costs will create a new form of inequality; it is an inequality of technological fitness. In contrast, those who can afford to be integrated and augmented with the new high priced technology will transcend a mere biological survival of the fittest to a new form of survival whereby the most technologically integrated individuals become the most fit. This is regardless of their genetic background. Moreover, because the new laws will favor those at the top of the economic pyramid, those at the base will be subject to more crushing human rights abuses than those at the top even if it is just periods of time. And granted, the unit price of the technology will eventually come down as it did with computers and cell phones, but it still makes opportunities ripe for abuse during these transition periods. Still, there may be unforeseen consequences not matching past behaviors that could also propagate abuse. Like the stock market, past behavior may no longer be predictive of future events. If we are really changing neuronal behaviors, will our old models of predicting future behavior hold up in the new reality?

From: Ray Kurzweil Predicts Three Technologies Will Define Our Future
By Sveta McShane and Jason Dorrier
Written Apr 19, 2016
This is the last in a four-part series looking at the big ideas in Ray Kurzweil's book " The Singularity Is Near."

Of all the technologies riding the wave of exponential progress, Kurzweil identifies genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics as the three overlapping revolutions which will define our lives in the decades to come. In what ways are these technologies revolutionary?

The genetics revolution will allow us to reprogram our own biology.
The nanotechnology revolution will allow us to manipulate matter at the molecular and atomic scale.
The robotics revolution will allow us to create a greater than human non-biological intelligence.

Once again the most fit, now meaning those individuals who can afford the new technologies, are more likely to survive and one can bet their last dollar that some form of a predator to prey relationship will evolve between the unequal economic classes.

A new direction of thought and action created by the technological singularity will require a new direction of thought and action on our part to survive in this new reality. I continue on to share by stating,

Let there be no doubt, the single most important aspect we are really battling for here is to control the future—our future—for the good of the whole. 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 us or them?

Regarding the words, "Whoever controls the Singularity will control the future", the word control implies some form of active intent. One only has to look at the modern day corporate players of Apple, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and other key players at the top of the corporate pyramid to see the level of active control they employ to promote their interests. Their intent is for world domination at least realistically in their their respective fields to control the future. They actively appropriate large amounts of capital and talent to ensure their future technological dominance. A quest to maximize profits and continue growth marches lockstep with a corporate fiduciary duty regarding such matters for their shareholders. This is an active intent to control the future.

The above four powerful mechanisms, although not exhaustive in scope and breadth as there are many more mechanisms, are too much for us to surmount and we will be conquered and eventually destroyed by the elite's economic inequality unless we begin to think and act differently.

Janebird21 ends her post in the work I am referencing with a sequence of what if? statements,

Instead of welfare programs What if policymakers looked at fair taxes and wealth distribution. What if that 1% paid their share of taxes and this was redistributed? What would the human race look like and what doors would open to us if we could change all the brains of a population for the better? What if wealth redistribution was the catalyst for the next step in human evolution.

Unfortunately these are based upon the same old rigid thoughts and actions that have gotten us into the predicament we find ourselves in today. Although they are compassionate and noble, they are nonetheless antiquated and ineffectual. Rather, I present the following set of what if statements as a guiding light to get at and solve the root cause of the problem:

1) What if everyone was to recognize economic inequality as the real problem at hand and not the fractured and disparate set of problems individuals and organizations are currently trying to solve?

2) What if all of these various individuals and organizations were to shift the focus of their attention and resources to solving the problem of economic inequality first as a bold unified step towards answering our common threat?

3) What if everyone in the 99% was to actively support the development and implementation of the Economic Inequality Rating App (EIRA)?

We now have the choice of creating a fair and just world for ourselves, or experiencing Orwell's boot in our collective face,

If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever. George Orwell

We are our own worst enemy when we allow these antiquated mechanisms to control our lives. The old rules of activism must be supplanted with a new mindset. The clock is ticking. Wake up and embrace a more advanced activism; rise up to the power of FirstRateCrowd's EIRA.
Times Referenced: 5

Posted on: » Thu Mar 21, 2019 10:21 am #23

User avatar
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2017 3:03 pm
REFERENCING: Sterling Volunteer, Post #22, Posted Mar 6, 2019

Doctor A prese...

Re: FirstRateCrowd's EIRA

Post by Jessica » Thu Mar 21, 2019 10:21 am

"Its The Economic Inequality Stupid" should be our new mantra. Elizabeth Warren's plan to break up big tech is not a simple matter and departs from the folksy wisdom of KISS, Keep It Simple Stupid. Controlling modern day markets is a risky business with unforeseen consequences. Surely the Economic Inequality Rating App, EIRA, is a better way to accomplish controlling high tech's control over us and especially its eventual manipulations guaranteed to increase economic inequality. Lets try Adam Smith's powerful free hand of the market place with the EIRA first before we go off on tangents requiring huge amounts of regulation and control. By putting the power back into the hands of the people through the use of the EIRA, I think we can do a much better job than the regulators can do.

In case you missed it, here is Warren's new plan to break up big tech, ... d9e0da324c

Once developed, the EIRA will allow an individual to select the equality virtues best in line with their own internal values. These large corporations and even smaller business's products and services will be rated to give an individual a match in value set that is best for them regarding economic inequality. Remember, the main goal is to stop economic inequality. Everything else is secondary to this concern in the long run. An individual may want more privacy by choosing DuckDuckGo over Google due to its lack of tracking but we will need to see what the final economic inequality rating turns out to be. There may be another option other than these two that overall has a lower EIRA score and this then would be the product to choose. Although the individual may think privacy is paramount, it is really the product or service with the lowest economic inequality score that matters. This I derived from Doctor A in his above posted words,
There needs to be a new direction of thought and action away from organizational and individualistic centered ideology towards that of a unified front to stop economic inequality. Conservative's brain structure, policy and regulatory capture by the rich, money in politics, flaws in capitalism, and movement nearing the rise of a technological singularity will all play a role in crushing any hope for humanity unless this new direction is achieved. Until that time, it will be business as usual with the last two human generations witnessing ever increasing economic inequality in the USA being proof positive that the old way of thinking is outdated and outright ineffective. What follows is a compilation of four basic mechanisms taken from the FirstRateCrowd website which are instrumental in enslaving our thoughts and actions unless we change.
I sum this up with the bumper sticker slogan of,

Its The Economic Inequality Stupid.

This should be our new mantra. Until people can divest themselves of their fractured and divisive thought patterns about what is important, all will not go well. In fact we will remain at a standstill or even worse, the conservative view will advance with their economic power.

We need to think of this in terms of the new paradigm and a revolution of ideas. The definition of these concepts originally presented by Doctor A in post #3 under the major category, The Community Business Venture (A GENERAL OVERVIEW DISCUSSION)
From: Merriam-Webster: Simple Definition of revolution : a sudden, extreme, or complete change in the way people live, work, etc.

Clearly, we can see the traditional corporate-centric form of capitalism, which has been around for hundreds of years, is ripe for change.

As a refresher...

From:, Intro to Business: What is a Paradigm Shift in Business? Instructor: Natalie Purcell

A paradigm is a perception or a group of ideas about how things should be done, made, or thought about. In other words, it's your perspective on the world, your point of view, or your beliefs about what's true. A paradigm shift occurs whenever there's a significant change in the way an individual or a group perceives something, and the old paradigm is replaced by a new way of thinking, or a new belief.

Individuals have their own personal paradigms, or lenses through which they view the world. Corporations and other organizations have corporate paradigms regarding the methods by which they believe their goals will best be accomplished.
So, what every you are working on in your daily life, be you an individual, a team, a university, or a business entity, STOP. Unless your actions are couched in the new thought paradigm of stopping economic inequality, all of you good intentions and energy will be useless in the long run. We all need to wrap our minds around this to create a new collective mind set where the whole is greater than the individual parts.
Times Referenced: 0

Posted on: » Fri Apr 19, 2019 5:53 pm #24

User avatar
Doctor A
Posts: 70
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:30 pm
REFERENCING: MaureenCarter, Post #14, Posted Nov 28, 2018
There is not much more of an existential threat to our lives than homicide. Murder rates in the USA are driven by income and economic inequality and crime rates are soaring as these inequalities continue to increase. Perceived social status is the main factor fueling the murder problem.

Re: FirstRateCrowd's EIRA

Post by Doctor A » Fri Apr 19, 2019 5:53 pm

Will the EIRA work as predicted to stop inequality? With regards to health outcomes, research indicates economic inequality is a causative factor and not correlational in nature. In other words, if we can decrease economic inequality within a country then we can substantially reduce its harmful effects upon that country's health.

Paramount to the above question, and to any research, is the concept of correlation vs causation. Here is a short video explaining the view needed to show causation ad not just correlation,

The research team of Pickett and Wilkinson present an excellent research article indicating the connection between economic inequality and health is causative. ... ckett.html

From: AHRQ--Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: Advancing Excellence in Health Care
Population Health: Behavioral and Social Science Insights
Income Inequality and Health: A Causal Review
By Kate E. Pickett and Richard G. Wilkinson
Note: This paper was published previously by Social Science & Medicine (2014 Dec 30; epub)

Here is the abstract of their work,

There is a very large literature examining income inequality in relation to health. Early reviews came to different interpretations of the evidence, though a large majority of studies reported that health tended to be worse in more unequal societies. More recent studies, not included in those reviews, provide substantial new evidence. Our purpose in this chapter is to assess whether or not wider income differences play a causal role leading to worse health. We conducted a literature review within an epidemiological causal framework and inferred the likelihood of a causal relationship between income inequality and health (including violence) by considering the evidence as a whole. The body of evidence strongly suggests that income inequality affects population health and well-being. The major causal criteria of temporality, biological plausibility, consistency, and lack of alternative explanations are well supported. Of the small minority of studies that found no association, most can be explained by income inequality being measured at an inappropriate scale, the inclusion of mediating variables as controls, use of subjective rather than objective measures of health, or followup periods that were too short. The evidence that large income differences have damaging health and social consequences is strong, and in most countries, inequality is increasing. Narrowing the gap will improve the health and well-being of populations.
I think non-health outcomes due to economic inequality, such as climate change, women's rights, the effects of money in politics, etc, need to be looked at independently for now regarding causation. However, regarding the EIRA's ability to transfer wealth from the 1% back to the 99%, should it function as described in this website, the reduced economic inequality should evoke a causative response by significantly reducing negative health outcomes.
Times Referenced: 1

Posted on: » Sun Apr 21, 2019 4:47 pm #25

User avatar
Doctor A
Posts: 70
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:30 pm
REFERENCING: Doctor A, Post #24, Posted Apr 20, 2019
Will the EIRA work as predicted to stop inequality? With regards to health outcomes, research indicates economic inequality is a causative factor and not correlational in nature. In other words, if we can decrease economic inequality within a country then we can substantially reduce its harmful effects upon that country's health.

Re: FirstRateCrowd's EIRA

Post by Doctor A » Sun Apr 21, 2019 4:47 pm

Here is my list of major factors that can significantly impact and prevent the Economic Inequality Rating App project from working as predicted. Areas of concern include the future of Democracy, time restrictions due to the technological singularity, the portion of the 99% that will actually use the app, resistance due to social value systems, the high initial startup and development costs, push back from the 1% and Artificial Super Intelligence. In my opinion, all of these events are possible threats and need to be managed either now or in the future.

1) The app will need a Democracy to work because authoritarian regimes will not allow it on the internet. Autocrats are usually supported by wealthy Oligarchs and Kleptocrats who would suffer financially from the EIRA. It certainly is not in their best interest.

Currently, the USA is no longer a full Democracy and with Trump we can easily slide into the wrong direction. I too was surprised by this news.

From: Post #27 under New age slavery on the website by Jessica, Fri Aug 31, 2018

The USA is no longer classified as a "full democracy" and is now rated as a "flawed democracy." We need democracy to support a free and vibrant internet to fight against authoritarian rule and for the Economic Inequality Rating App to flourish.

I watched Fareed Zakaria's video below and was shocked to see the USA is no longer classified as a full Democracy as rated by the Democracy Index. I assumed like most people we were a full Democracy and did not know of the tarnished ranking. This is important because the Economic Inequality Rating App (EIRA) needs Democratic countries to be most effective.

Sterling calls it correctly when he states in his post #22 under New Age Slavery,

"Can you read the handwriting on the wall or do you need a rifle barrel poked into your ribs to get the point. The world is drinking the poisoned Kool Aid of authoritarianism which derives its power from a loss of democracy and inequality. Take note, authoritarianism and inequality are the very bedrock of slavery. Say goodbye to your freedoms unless you are willing to fight for them."

To drive this concept home, Fareed Zakaria presents a global view on the demise of Democracy.[/quote]

Wikipedia: The Democracy Index is an index compiled by the UK-based company the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) that intends to measure the state of Democracy in 167 countries ... try_(2017)

Hand in hand with this declining Democracy around the world and in the USA is the decline of a free internet needed to support the app.

2) Time restrictions due to the shortening time frame imposed by the advancing technological singularity.

I have been asked, "Is there still time for the EIRA to become a success with the looming technological singularity?" I believe the answer is yes, there is still time to accomplish our goal of stopping economic inequality with the app. By 2029, about 9 years from now, it is estimated Artificial Intelligence will be on par with the adult human wet brain. Sometime after that, with estimates of 2045 to 2049, the full effects of the technological singularity will be known. So, I think a window of opportunity of at least 9 years plus a number of more years exist depending upon the speed of the developing singularity. This is sufficient time for the app to be successful in moderating the direction the technological singularity takes.

3) Will individual be able to transcend their own individual value systems and select the item or company with the lowest EIRA score?

Once again people will need to transcend their social values. If given a choice of near certain death or a future world within the technological singularity so twisted and perverted from the reality as we know it today, I think they can be persuaded to make the right choice.

4) The initial cost to set up this project is high. But in comparison to what the consequences would be due to not setting up the project, this is minuscule. I estimate to set up the app for near full development would cost about $100 million. Out of this amount, creating the database and the advertisement will be the most costly items. The app technology itself for hand held use is already state of the art and can be readily purchased or developed.

5) Push back is expected from the 1% as they will fight tooth and nail to stop this transfer of wealth. But a concerted effort by the 99% can counter their power. After all, their very existence as the rich is dependent upon the rest of us.

6) Artificial Super Intelligence (ASI) goes beyond just the mimicking of human thought and creates a world in which a computer's cognitive ability is superior to a human's. It is well acknowledged by experts that whoever creates this system first will control all the other advanced computer systems and hence the world. This is because who ever reaches ASI first will have an extreme advantage over all other systems given the exponential nature of their existence.

This obviously lends itself to many secret research projects working towards this goal around the world. We must support the United States in its endeavor to become the first to finish this race. At least, even though secret, congressional oversight will be utilized and from my view there is less likely the chance of a tyrannical government producing a SAI tyrannical computer.

My hope is that other members on the site will give a critical review of these six basic hindrances to the successful implementation of the EIRA. Moreover, any other additional overlooked obstructive processes not mentioned above are most welcome so we can assess their impact.

Times Referenced: 2

Posted on: » Fri Jun 28, 2019 4:51 pm #26

User avatar
Sterling Volunteer
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 6:15 pm
REFERENCING: Sterling Volunteer, Post #22, Posted Mar 6, 2019

Doctor A prese...

Re: FirstRateCrowd's EIRA

Post by Sterling Volunteer » Fri Jun 28, 2019 4:51 pm

Rachel Maddow on MSNBC presents clear examples of Trump loading lobbyists into federal positions as clear examples of Regulatory Capture (See also Corporate Capture and Policy Capture) Below is a short video of her program vividly detailing this process from her show.


"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"

The show has the title: Trump has chosen lobbyists to run EPA, HHS, DOD, and Interior
Times Referenced: 1

Posted on: » Sat Jun 29, 2019 2:27 pm #27

User avatar
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2017 3:03 pm
REFERENCING: Doctor A, Post #25, Posted Apr 21, 2019
Here is my list of major factors that can significantly impact and prevent the Economic Inequality Rating App project from working as predicted. Areas of concern include the future of Democracy, time restrictions due to the technological si...

Re: FirstRateCrowd's EIRA

Post by Jessica » Sat Jun 29, 2019 2:27 pm

I have been reading Doctor A's past posts and wholeheartedly agree with him how a viable democracy is necessary for the successful implementation of the Economic Inequality Rating App (EIRA). I also understand his intention is to maintain this discussion somewhat within a domestic USA reach. But I also think it is fair to point out how foreign influences will eventually play a role in hindering the implementation of the project. Non-democratic countries, authoritarian regimes, and rogue states all will have a stake from keeping this project from coming to fruition. The 2016 elections were definitely hacked and manipulated by the Russians according to Robert Mueller's report. But there are more bad actors out there and I think China, with their antidemocratic ways, needs to be closely watched due to their rising status in the AI world.

China Is Quickly Becoming an AI Superpower
By Peter H. Diamandis, MD -Aug 29, 2018 ... uperpower/

Last year, China’s government put out its plan to lead the world in AI by 2030.

As Eric Schmidt has explained, “It’s pretty simple. By 2020, they will have caught up. By 2025, they will be better than us. By 2030, they will dominate the industries of AI.”

And the figures don’t lie.

With a $14 trillion GDP, China is predicted to account for over 35 percent of global economic growth from 2017 to 2019—nearly double the US GDP’s predicted 18 percent.

And AI is responsible for a big chunk of that.
As discussed by Kai-Fu Lee in his soon-to-be-released book AI Superpowers, four main drivers are tipping the balance in China’s favor:

Abundant data
Hungry entrepreneurs empowered by new tools
Growing AI expertise
Mass government funding and support
1. Abundant Data

Perhaps China’s biggest advantage is the sheer quantity of its data. Tencent’s WeChat platform alone has over one billion monthly active users. That’s more than the entire population of Europe. Take mobile payments spending: China outstrips the US by a ratio of 50 to 1.Chinese e-commerce purchases are almost double US totals.

But China’s data advantage involves more than just quantity. As China witnesses an explosion of O2O (online-to-offline) startups, their data is creating a new intelligence layer unparalleled in the West.

Whereas American users’ payment and transportation data are fragmented across various platforms, Chinese AI giants like Tencent have created unified online ecosystems that concentrate all your data in one place.
2. Hungry Entrepreneurs

While China’s ‘copycat’ era saw a massive wave of mediocre-quality products and unoriginal mimicry, it also forged some of the most competitive, rapidly iterating entrepreneurs in the world.

Refined by fire, Chinese tech entrepreneurs have stopped at nothing to beat the competition, pulling every trick and tactic to smear, outpace and outsmart parallel startups.

Former founder-director of Google Brain Andrew Ng noted the hunger raving among Chinese entrepreneurs: “The velocity of work is much faster in China than in most of Silicon Valley. When you spot a business opportunity in China, the window of time you have to respond is very short.”
3. AI Expertise

It is important to note that China is still new to the game. When deep learning got its big break in 2012—when a neural network decimated the competition in an international computer vision contest—China had barely woken up to the AI revolution.

But in a few short years, China’s AI community has caught up fast. While the world’s most elite AI researchers still largely cluster in the US, favoring companies like Google, Chinese tech giants are quickly closing the gap.

Already in academia, Chinese AI researchers stand shoulder-to-shoulder with their American contemporaries. At AAAI’s 2017 conference, an equal number of accepted papers came from US- and China-based researchers.
4. China’s Government Directive

The day DeepMind’s AlphaGo beat top-ranking Chinese Go player Ke Jie has gone down in history as China’s “Sputnik Moment.”

Within two months of the AI’s victory, China’s government issued its plan to make China the global center of AI innovation, aiming for a 1 trillion RMB (about $150 billion USD) AI industry by 2030.

But there is a critical difference between China’s New Generation AI Development Plan (released in July 2017) and America’s 2016 AI strategic plan, released under the Obama Administration to encourage ramped-up AI R&D.

While the White House report got modest news coverage and a mildly enthusiastic response from the AI community, this was barely a hiccup in comparison to China’s clarion call. When the CCP speaks, everyone listens.

Within a year, Chinese VC investors were pouring record sums into AI startups, surpassing the US to make up 48 percent of AI venture funding globally. Over the past decade, Chinese government spending on STEM research has grown by double digits year on year.

And China’s political system is set up such that local officials are incentivized to outcompete others for leadership in CCP initiatives, each striving to lure in AI companies and entrepreneurs with generous subsidies and advantageous policies.
Perhaps not initially, but sooner or later, China and other countries will come to loggerheads with the EIRA. They will see it as an existential threat to their power structure, core missions, and their planned way of life. We will always need to be on the lookout for their influence just as we are now doing with the Russians interfering with our democratic elections.
Times Referenced: 0

Posted on: » Fri Aug 09, 2019 8:49 pm #28

User avatar
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2017 3:03 pm
REFERENCING: Sterling Volunteer, Post #26, Posted Jun 28, 2019
Rachel Maddow on MSNBC presents clear examples of Trump loading lobbyists into federal positions as clear examples of Regulatory Capture (See also Corporate Capture and Policy Capture) Below is a short video of her program vividly detailing this process from her show.

Re: FirstRateCrowd's EIRA

Post by Jessica » Fri Aug 09, 2019 8:49 pm

The use of Regulatory Capture exists not only in the United States to curry favorable conditions for politicians and corporate entities but also on the world stage. An example of this is China's use of the process to manipulate the development of an international artificial intelligence rule-book aimed at giving them a future advantage over other countries.

What’s Behind the International Rush to Write an AI Rulebook?
By , Edd Gent, Jun 11, 2019 ... -rulebook/

Although the article does not use the term Regulatory Capture per se, it is obvious from their description of the process that this is what they mean when they say,
There’s no better way of ensuring you win a race than by setting the rules yourself. That may be behind the recent rush by countries, international organizations, and companies to put forward their visions for how the AI race should be governed.
The article points to China's role in this process when it states,
China became the latest to release a set of “ethical standards” for the development of AI last month, which might raise eyebrows given the country’s well-documented AI-powered state surveillance program and suspect approaches to privacy and human rights.

But given the recent flurry of AI guidelines, it may well have been motivated by a desire not to be left out of the conversation. The previous week the OECD, backed by the US, released its own “guiding principles” for the industry, and in April the EU released “ethical guidelines.”
Times Referenced: 0

Posted on: » Wed Aug 21, 2019 9:43 am #29

User avatar
Posts: 69
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 » Wed Aug 21, 2019 9:43 am

We are continually being bombarded with numbers and statistics regarding the plight of economic inequality, so much so that we become numb to its true meaning. Here are the latest numbers from Oxfam's 2019 report. ... /petition/
Last year, the world’s billionaires saw their wealth go up $2.5 billion each day.

In stark contrast, the world’s poorest people saw their wealth decrease by $500 million daily.
From Doctor A's post we see,
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"
And while we are at it, from Brookings, "The rich can fight inequality, too"
Kaushik Basu
Monday, March 25, 2019 ... ality-too/
we have
For example, Oxfam’s
latest annual report estimates that the 26 richest people on earth own the same wealth, or have the same net worth, as the 3.8 billion people who comprise the bottom half of the world’s wealth distribution.
I have a hard time putting these numbers into perspective. So every time I see such numbers I think of the quote,
“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—for ever.”
― George Orwell, 1984
This is what economic inequality is doing to the face of humanity.
Times Referenced: 0

Posted on: » Thu Sep 05, 2019 8:50 am #30

User avatar
Doctor A
Posts: 70
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:30 pm
REFERENCING: Sterling Volunteer, Post #22, Posted Mar 6, 2019

Doctor A prese...

Re: FirstRateCrowd's EIRA

Post by Doctor A » Thu Sep 05, 2019 8:50 am

In order to grasp the nuts and bolts of how the Economic Inequality Rating App will function, an understanding that economic Inequality has its own prioritized value system is needed.

From Wikipedia:
"Values can be defined as broad preferences concerning appropriate courses of actions or outcomes. As such, values reflect a person's sense of right and wrong or what ‘ought’ to be. ‘Equal rights for all’, ‘Excellence deserves admiration’, and ‘People should be treated with respect and dignity’ are representatives of values. Values tend to influence attitudes and behavior…"
Knowing what is right or wrong or what "ought" to be is important, but of greater importance is the harm done by economic inequality. It impacts and warps all our other value systems. For example, in areas of high economic inequality, homicide rates skyrocket. This misalignment of a social value to commit murder is directly related to levels of economic inequality predicated largely upon an altered need for respect. For this reason, and for the purposes of the Economic Inequality Rating App (EIRA), the choices we make in purchasing an item or service must be based purely upon economic inequality parameters and not other values. Economic inequality in the long run will be the overriding concern for humanity. In other words, the core problems we face are caused by economic inequality and many misalignments of other value systems are subsequently based upon it.

Who among us would not like to have our own personal social value system be the law of the land? However, by knowing how much economic inequality subjects the individual and society to misery and how it will usher in the eventual extinction of our species, we will all need to free ourselves of these thoughts and choose the product with the lowest rating on the EIRA regardless of other values we may hold dear. This may seem callous and even cruel but a sacrifice of our other social values when it comes to selecting a product or a service for purchase is essential for the greater good. In this case, the ends do justify the means.

This does not mean we abandon our other values at the altar of the lowest EIRA rating or that we toss out our value systems altogether. No, this is not what we do at all. To the contrary, we continue to fight for them in different ways such as through educational campaigns and in different areas such as voting initiatives. However, for the purpose of changing the harm economic inequality does to the individual and society, a lower EIRA score needs to supersede our thoughts to support our other value systems in the arena of purchasing boycotts.

Sometimes our values collide when we have to make important purchasing choices. The EIRA helps to realign our choice processes and guides us to maximizing a reduction in economic inequality. Accordingly we will depend upon the EIRA to guide our decision making and we need to adhere to its ability to do so especially when our other values collide with its findings. Put another way, all other values need to be subordinate to stopping economic inequality when it comes to purchasing boycotts.

Here are some examples of conflicting value situations we may find ourselves in:

A manufacturer of cell phones, which happens to makes a spectacular mobile device, has reportedly used slave labor in Asia to assemble their products. Although we find this repugnant, if this manufacturer has the lowest EIRA rating then this is who we purchase from compared to similar phones regardless of our abhorrence against slave labor.

A Big Pharma company uses animal testing to verify the effectiveness of their products. Again, we would choose this product if it had the lower inequality rating over another even though we find the animal testing repulsive.

An individual may support LGBT rights but the supermarket chain we shop at supports the opposite as evidenced by a lawsuit in the local paper. However, the supermarket has a low inequality rating compared to another chain in the neighborhood based upon the EIRA. In this case we would still defer to the market with the lower rating when choosing where to shop even though we may fully support LGBT rights.

In these examples, the choosing of the lowest rating goes against the grain for many people and is counter intuitive. Yet it is the only way to truly solve the morass we find ourselves in today. Economic inequality is truly so corrosive and harmful that it is necessary to defer some of our other values to stop it. This is part of a new way of thinking that puts lowering economic inequality first.

In any event, there still needs to be a transfer of wealth to the less fortunate for any meaningful reduction in economic inequality to occur and this is the role of the EIRA. This redistribution will bring about a positive change in peoples’ lives and is a guiding light regarding reducing economic inequality.

The EIRA allows us to make choices regarding the reallocation of wealth in favor of the 99%. It is a tool we can use to reduce economic inequality for ourselves and others. But it is unrealistic for any one individual to keep track of all the variables influencing the economic inequality landscape. It is an overwhelming task. As humans, we just do not have the mental capacity to do so.

Everyone is into "doing something," but this "doing" is mostly at a high level of thought processing. But economic inequality operates mostly at a subconscious level and is quite ubiquitous. This is what makes it so insidious and impactful upon our psyche; this is why it is so difficult to change. The EIRA helps us to free ourselves from the chains binding us to our subconscious.

This is not an easy task and is essentially the reason we need to rely upon the EIRA. This tool helps us overcome our blindness to the economic inequality being created around us. Because of the way our brains are hardwired, we cannot think fast enough or take in a sufficient amount of accurate data to make an informed decision during a purchase. The EIRA solves these problems for us.

For these reasons, the development of the EIRA rating will require its conceptual construction to be created by specialists in economic inequality policy, economists, social psychologists, and others who can separate out social values from true economic inequality principles. This is the real value of the EIRA.

This now leads us to a discussion of and, two companies trying to reduce economic inequality. However, because both companies are predominately social value minded versus economic inequality oriented in their approach, little will be accomplished by way of reducing economic inequality. The world's problems will remain intact and unchanged.

A description of Buycott is painted in the following article,

Digital Trends
Buycott’ App Review: Scan a barcode and learn everything about the company that made it
By AJ Dellinger May 25, 2013
"Buycott serves two separate but equally important functions: It informs you about the companies that are behind a given product, and it allows you to set causes you believe in to help you determine what to buy and what to avoid. The first of those functions takes place when you scan an item’s barcode with your phone’s camera. After you scan an item, Buycott searches its database to provide you with as much information as it possibly can about the maker of it. You get everything from contact information – phone numbers, emails, social media accounts, and headquarters location – to a family tree that lists off all related companies and shows you how they are connected. This is probably one of the most eye-opening areas of Buycott. Seeing big companies all laid out with the dots connecting them back to one another shows you just how small the corporate business world really is."

"Aside from company information, Buycott will also tell you a product’s status in ‘campaigns.’ Campaigns serve as a way for you to determine what is important to you. There is a wide range of campaigns you can join. There are trending groups, ones that are currently popular and drawing in members, or you can search through campaigns that fall into a variety of categories from animal welfare to economic justice to human rights. There is some overlap between groups – you’ll see quite a few dedicated to demanding GMO (genetically modified) labeling, for example – but it’s easy to see which campaigns have more complete lists of companies to support and avoid."

"…remember that there’s something here to fit anyone’s agenda. Under the “Social Responsibility” category, there is a campaign called “Avoid Koch Industries,” which aims to point people away from Koch owned companies because of “their mission [to place] profits before our communities, our environment, and our democracy.” On the same list is a “Support Koch Industries Campaign” that backs the corporation because the brothers “have generiously donated millions of dollars to libertarian, fiscal conservative, and limited government causes.” There are campaigns pushing for stricter gun control and ones dedicated to supporting the Second Amendment. You can probably find your side of an issue somewhere within Buycott’s campaigns."
To date, after reviewing their website, I do not see where much has changed since the writing of this article. At no time do they take a stance as to which corporations or products are better than others relative to economic inequality. Furthermore their app is related to social values through their campaigns and their lack of distinguishing one campaign from the other as being better or worse than the other is apparent.

For example, having both pro and con campaigns regarding Koch industries and second amendment rights is schizophrenic at best with the campaigns acting more as popularity contests already mirroring the view of the common person. This may make the individual who self selects their own value system feel good about themselves but it is really invoking stagnation at best. It just reflects the push and pull of ideologies already ingrained in our society. Little will be accomplished.

JustCapital is a bit more of a mixed bag but their prominence as a social value platform is on display when its co-founder and board member, Deepak Chopra states the following:

From: The Chopra Foundation
JUST Capital: The Next Revolution in Economic Wellbeing
17 Apr 2015 by Deepak Chopra and Martin Whittaker ... wellbeing/
"Do you spend time socializing with people whose core values you question? Do you turn a blind eye when people you know act in ways you find fundamentally abhorrent? Probably not. Now, what if you knew a company was operating in a way that went against something you felt strongly about. Would you adjust your purchasing activity? Or would you prefer to buy from, or work for, or invest in those businesses operating in ways that align with your values? For us, the answer is yes – and that’s exactly how it should be. Companies should be rewarded for helping, not harming, our collective society.

Most of us think of corporations as our employers, or as the providers and manufacturers of countless products and services that we use to make our lives more convenient and comfortable. Often, we enjoy a transactional relationship with the brands we are loyal to, but in the rush of everyday routine we don’t stop to think about how these brands impact our society on a fundamental level.

Let’s say you are a self-identified environmentalist – someone who makes a conscious effort in your personal life to do things large and small that make a difference. Or maybe you care more about social issues, and are active in supporting underprivileged communities in your neighborhood. How do you know if you are making the right decisions as a consumer to buy products or services from corporations who share your concern for the environment? Likewise, how do you know if companies in your 401(k) retirement plan are paying a living wage to minority workers, or providing good benefits, or behaving in a manner consistent with your social values?

The truth is that outside of conducting extensive and time-consuming research, people do not know if corporations are acting in a way that aligns with their values – whatever they may be."
Furthermore, the JustCapital mission statement identifies them as a social values minded company,
Our Mission

"At JUST Capital, our mission is to build a more just marketplace that better reflects the true priorities of the American people. We believe that business, and capitalism, can and must be a positive force for change. We believe that if they have the right information, people will buy from, invest in, work for, and otherwise support companies that align with their values."
JustCapital's redeeming quality regarding economic inequality comes from the fact that one of its rankings out of many is related to a direct redistribution of wealth by ranking various aspects of the pay level employees receive.

I wish to emphasize those issues of pay as a redistribution of wealth is not a black and white issue but rather presents as shades of gray. For example, vacation pay, health benefits and travel pay represent indirect forms of wealth distribution. This is the reason it will take a trained team of experts to determine the correct weight these indirect issues lend to the EIRA's overall score.

Economic inequality is ultimately a progressive versus a conservative issue because most of the underlying mechanisms for creating economic inequality are due to conservatives’ brain structure which in turn creates conservative ideology and policy. The research is abundantly clear that new technology is a main driver creating economic inequality and the new American Plutocrats who create this technology are predominately conservatives.

Overall our future's bleak outcomes are being enhanced by two powerful streams merging together to create the ultimate disaster: the coming technological singularity and increasing economic inequality. Economic inequality creates more new-technology profitability for the 1%, which then creates more uncontrolled economic inequality through further investing in new technology. These two streams—technological singularity and economic inequality—massively feed upon each other. But the proposed EIRA can change the trajectory of the negative outcomes and avert the impending disaster.

Although there are many conservatives in the 99%, they too will need to address the question of selecting products and services either by social value systems or by economic inequality parameters. Even though this choice may be repugnant to some and a bitter pill to swallow, anyone in the 99%, regardless of ideology, will need to choose reducing economic inequality over other social value systems if we are to survive.
Above all else, economic inequality parameters need to supplant other social values when it comes to purchasing decisions; this is what will reduce economic inequality. Once this takes place, the human organism is designed subconsciously to take notice and adapt as long as the reduction is significant and sustained. Only after this occurs will we be in a position to realistically change the social value systems from the misalignment caused by economic inequality. But if economic inequality is not reduced we will end up like Nero-- fiddling as our country burns in an intractable tug of war between progressive and conservative thought. This push and pull stagnation will cripple our ability to legislate policies needed for good governance, and to regulate the coming technological singularity. It is only by the 99% standing up to the 1% that this can happen.

In the grand scheme of things it is a small sacrifice to make our purchasing decisions based exclusively upon economic inequality principles and not other social value systems. This will create a shift towards more positive outcomes for the benefit of all humanity. Surely it is worth the sacrifice.
Times Referenced: 0

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests