FirstRateCrowd's EIRA

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

CLICK HERE to learn more about the EIRA.

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

User avatar
Posts: 47
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: 53
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:

1) Money in politics

© 2018 Scholars Strategy Network
How Money Corrupts American Politics
Benjamin I. Page, Northwestern University ... -politics

the perfectly legal flood of money that pervades American politics has fundamentally corrupting effects.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2) Regulatory capture (and corporate capture)


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

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

Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation
The Corporate Capture of the United States
Posted by the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance & Financial Regulation, on
Thursday, January 5, 2012 Editor ... ed-states/

American corporations today are like the great European monarchies of yore: They have the power to control the rules under which they function and to direct the allocation of public resources. This is not a prediction of what’s to come; this is a simple statement of the present state of affairs. Corporations have effectively captured the United States: its judiciary, its political system, and its national wealth, without assuming any of the responsibilities of dominion. Evidence is everywhere.

The “smoking gun” is CEO pay. Compensation is an expression of concentrated power — of enterprise power concentrated in the chief executive officer and of national power concentrated in corporations.

This is the essence of “capture” – CEOs are enriched, while all other corporate constituencies, including government, are left with liabilities. A relatively few autocrats have taken control over the policies and wealth allocation of the United States.

The financial power of American corporations now controls every stage of politics — legislative, executive, and ultimately judicial. With its January 2010 decision in the Citizens United case, the Supreme Court removed all legal restraints on the extent of corporate financial involvement in politics, a grotesque decision that can have only one effect: maximizing corporate – not national — value. Today’s CEOs have been granted the power to direct political payments and organize PAC programs to achieve objectives entirely in their own self-interest, and they have been quick to use it.

Capture has been further implemented through the extensive lobbying power of corporations. Abraham Lincoln’s warning about “corporations enthroned” and Dwight Eisenhower’s about the “unwarranted influence by the military/industrial complex” have been fully realized in our own time. Reported lobbying expenditures have risen annually, to $3.5 billion in 2010. Half of the Senators and 42 percent of House members who left Congress between 1998 and 2004 became lobbyists, as did 310 former appointees of George W. Bush and 283 of Bill Clinton.

Capture has placed the most powerful CEOs above the reach of the law and beyond its effective enforcement. Extensive evidence of Wall Street’s critical involvement in the financial crisis notwithstanding, not a single senior Wall Street executive has lost his job, and pay levels have been rigorously maintained even when, as noted earlier, TARP payments had to be refinanced in order to remove any possible restrictions.

Finally, capture has been perpetuated through the removal of property “off shore,” where it is neither regulated nor taxed. The social contract between Americans and their corporations was supposed to go roughly as follows: In exchange for limited liability and other privileges, corporations were to be held to a set of obligations that legitimatized the powers they were given. But modern corporations have assumed the right to relocate to different jurisdictions, almost at will, irrespective of where they really do business, and thus avoid the constraints of those obligations.

Like the epic battle between hyenas and lions, this political fighting for economic control between the rich and those that have not is viscous and enduring. This is madness. Let us put an end to this nonsense by supporting the Economic Inequality Rating App. It creates a new environment not controlled by these politically generated forces and can stop economic inequality. The political process is ineffective in creating long term results on our behalf whereas the Economic Inequality Rating App (EIRA) bypasses the pitfalls of politics and directly solves the problem of inequality.

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: 1

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

User avatar
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2017 3:03 pm
REFERENCING: Sterling Volunteer, Post #22, Posted Mar 6, 2019
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 ...

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: 54
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: 54
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, and initial startup and development costs. 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 10 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 10 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) I assume most individuals in the 99% will participate in using the app once it is developed. However, political persuasions may defeat some of this usage. For example, it is currently hard to know what percentage of Donald Trump's base would use the app even though it is in their best interest. I wish to point out that the base electing Donald Trump did not did not do so in their own best interest so we may have to suspend rational thought along this line of inquiry. An advertising campaign addressing the brain structure of conservatives in the 99% will be needed to bring these people on board in some manner. If people knew what was at stake, I think they would use the app. Overall, I believe a majority of individuals in the 99% would use the app regardless of political persuasion. They would be voting for their future survival every time it is used.

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.

I base this cost estimate upon the financial needs of setting up JustCapital, a company with a similar model as FirstRateCrowd's but with a different outcome in mind. JustCapital's goal is to make corporations confirm to being more "Just" for American workers. Their model and goal will not be successful in stopping the wealthy elite's grip upon the 99% or reducing economic inequality as efficiently or effectively as will the EIRA. Here is information on their company in this link:

It is my hope that other members on the site will give a critical review of these four basic hindrances to the successful implementation of the EIRA. Moreover, any other additional overlooked obstructive process not mentioned above are most welcome so we can assess their impact.
Times Referenced: 0

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests