What plan for the upcoming inflation?

[RB]

inflation? what inflation

there is a report just out from the Royal Bank - the people are very optimistic about this economy

it is strange how good news seem to coincide with changes the government makes such as merging of taxes

[Machjo]

inflation? what inflation

there is a report just out from the Royal Bank - the people are very optimistic about this economy

it is strange how good news seem to coincide with changes the government makes such as merging of taxes

Yes, they're optimistic ob-wise. But the signs of inflation are here already.

[Pliny]

Sure, FDR made it illegal to hoard gold (which is a distinct difference from preventing them from owing gold).

Own.

Bush/Obama have made it illegal (at times) to short stocks, have artificially kept mortgage rates low through MBS purchases by the fed, and have helped Ford sell Volvo at a loss by selling it to a foreign based company that then profits Goldman Sachs which, itself, was bailed out by taxpayer funds.

Governments do whatever is necessary to backstop their economy or their cronies.

Sometimes governments do both at the same time.

They create most of the crises themselves and then hustle to try and patch them up.

[Pliny]

Who assumes this and why do they do so? I certainly don't view this as the way life is supposed to be. The only debts I ever took on were my student loans and I repaid them within a month of finishing my undergrad. The only people who just "naturally" go into debt are people who do not think for themselves. One should only go into debt after making a rational decision that it is worthwhile to do so, such as for example to make a profit (like msj says he did).

Well, I suppose you will not need a loan for a car or a mortgage for a house. I presume you are also single.

[msj]

Own.

You should look up the law.

Americans could own nominal amounts of gold and certain people (dentists, artists etc) could own more than that.

[Bonam]

Well, I suppose you will not need a loan for a car or a mortgage for a house. I presume you are also single.

A car can be bought with cash saved up over a relatively short time frame if one wishes to avoid debt. A house mortgage is something that one should carefully consider and only enter if they understand the conditions and feel they can pay off the debt. One also has the option to rent.

Again, individuals have every choice when it comes to this, they are not forced to go into debt.

[Pliny]

A car can be bought with cash saved up over a relatively short time frame if one wishes to avoid debt. A house mortgage is something that one should carefully consider and only enter if they understand the conditions and feel they can pay off the debt. One also has the option to rent.

Again, individuals have every choice when it comes to this, they are not forced to go into debt.

True they are not forced to go into debt. But the reality is, you live better being in debt. Solving problems, such as the need for transportation, through credit is more immediate and very attractive. Do you save for a year and settle for what you can get or do you get the car of your choice right now? Few will forego the opportunity to resolve such problems.

If money were more sound and a real store of value the temptation to part with it would be less. If it is not worth anything itself it is easier to spend. The natural inclination is to have something of value. Fiat paper currency of today is merely a claim on goods that loses value over time.

I read once the progression of inflation and it's effect on the inclination to buy.

When there is no inflation there is no hurry to buy. The price will be the same and your money will buy next year what it will buy today. When there is some inflation you look at how the old washing machine is working and decide it will soon be time to get a new one and you better get it soon because next year they will cost more and your dollar will not go as far. When there is hyper-inflation it is best to buy two today because you will soon not be able to afford one.

The tendency to spend the money as opposed to saving it is directly proportional to the rate of inflation.

It makes sense to me. Who wants to hang onto a depreciating dollar that will buy less tomorrow than it will today.

[Bonam]

True they are not forced to go into debt. But the reality is, you live better being in debt. Solving problems, such as the need for transportation, through credit is more immediate and very attractive. Do you save for a year and settle for what you can get or do you get the car of your choice right now? Few will forego the opportunity to resolve such problems.

...

I read once the progression of inflation and it's effect on the inclination to buy.

When there is no inflation there is no hurry to buy. The price will be the same and your money will buy next year what it will buy today. When there is some inflation you look at how the old washing machine is working and decide it will soon be time to get a new one and you better get it soon because next year they will cost more and your dollar will not go as far. When there is hyper-inflation it is best to buy two today because you will soon not be able to afford one.

In my experience the reality is the complete opposite of how you paint it. When I was buying a car, my temptation was to wait another year, and then another, because the cars that came out in each subsequent year were better, more efficient, with newer features, improved safety, etc. This qualitative improvement in the nature of the products available outpaces monetary inflation by a large margin, as far as I can tell. The exponential acceleration of technological progress is a HUGE deflationary pressure that utterly dwarfs the inflationary effects generated by our government's fiscal/monetary policies.

[maple_leafs182]

I'll disagree with you their, inflation will kill the US Dollar.

It may even hyper inflate.

[bush_cheney2004]

I'll disagree with you their, inflation will kill the US Dollar.

It may even hyper inflate.

Great! I will need a much bigger wallet.

But first, you had better learn the circumstances of real hyper-inflation before assuming it will happen to the US dollar.

Anybody alive in the mid 1970's has already seen inflation.....yawn.

[Pliny]

In my experience the reality is the complete opposite of how you paint it. When I was buying a car, my temptation was to wait another year, and then another, because the cars that came out in each subsequent year were better, more efficient, with newer features, improved safety, etc. This qualitative improvement in the nature of the products available outpaces monetary inflation by a large margin, as far as I can tell. The exponential acceleration of technological progress is a HUGE deflationary pressure that utterly dwarfs the inflationary effects generated by our government's fiscal/monetary policies.

Didn't want a car that much then, did you? You can wait around for technology if that is what you prefer, choosing instead to keep your "currency". Most people want a vehicle just to be mobile, your time preference for increased technical standards, in my estimation, would be an exception to the rule. Since you are at variance with what I have said perhaps some other commodity than a vehicle would serve as a more illustrative example. Or...you could wait before you buy anything? In which case I would say you would prefer having the money over all circumstances.

[Pliny]

Great! I will need a much bigger wallet.

But first, you had better learn the circumstances of real hyper-inflation before assuming it will happen to the US dollar.

Anybody alive in the mid 1970's has already seen inflation.....yawn.

What are the circumstances of real hyper-inflation?

I had a union job in the seventies and had no clue about inflation or what was going on around me. The malls seemed quieter. And I was looking at getting some real estate so the Realtors were all complaining about the economy. What? Me worry! I obviously didn't know when to buy real estate. Although, oddly enough, it turned out alright.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Did he. I didn't know that. Anyway, it's not illegal to own gold today, nor many other commodities which have a high value density.

Something being difficult isn't really an excuse not to do it, if you think that it's something worth doing. It is not impossible to plan ahead.

Saying that the Canadian or American dollar could become "worthless" overnight is a huge exaggeration, and you know it. The value of these currencies changes by a few percent per year, and if in some extraordinary event one of them really was heading on a course to become massively devalued, there would be at least months to do something about it. Secondly, if one really is uneasy about currency, they can purchase commodities, real estate, stocks and bonds, alternate currencies, or whatever else they want. I'm sure you've heard the standard advice for diversifying your portfolio, and it certainly holds true in this case.

I would of course also be fully supportive of that. However, what I was saying is that even with the present level of government power and interference, it is still very much possible for people to effectively plan for themselves.

The only time where most people really have to take on debt "by design" is when buying a house, and perhaps student loans for people in college/university (which can be paid off very quickly after graduating). Maybe also when buying a car but there are a lot of options there besides taking on large debt. There is no other reason for the typical person to ever be in debt, in my opinion.

Frankly, the only real major debt a person should have in their life is their first mortgage, and they shouldn't be taking that on unless they are reasonably sure they will be able to pay it off.

Maybe I just expect too much of people? I dunno.

Yet the reality is that most people are in debt up to their eyeballs, that is a fact. There are many folks that live off of their credit cards and just make minimum payments. Their is a debt problem whether you want to believe it or not. Business has the same issues and they struggle too.

[Bonam]

Yet the reality is that most people are in debt up to their eyeballs, that is a fact. There are many folks that live off of their credit cards and just make minimum payments. Their is a debt problem whether you want to believe it or not.

I never claimed that there isn't. There are plenty of people who are, as you put it, "up to their eyeballs", in debt. The reason they are thus indebted is a chain of their own personal choices and a lack of responsibility with their money. People who live off credit cards and make minimum payments (and pay 18% interest or whatever on those credit cards) have made some incredibly foolish choices. This is not a fault of the system but of poor individual choices.

[Pliny]

I never claimed that there isn't. There are plenty of people who are, as you put it, "up to their eyeballs", in debt. The reason they are thus indebted is a chain of their own personal choices and a lack of responsibility with their money. People who live off credit cards and make minimum payments (and pay 18% interest or whatever on those credit cards) have made some incredibly foolish choices. This is not a fault of the system but of poor individual choices.

Ultimately, they are poor individual choices. But that begs the question why the majority is living with debt and making those poor choices? Are wyly and Waldo correct, people in general are stupid? Are they just shallow creatures selfishly satisfying their desires? Most are not stupid but capable of understanding, and most are not selfishly satisfying their desires, but realize they have a responsibility beyond themselves.

Flatly, the monetary system, having only human checks on it's size, fosters and encourages debt.

Just getting people to understand what money is and isn't, is difficult enough. Most will tell you it is a medium of exchange but that is only a part of what defines money and is more just a definition of a currency. The effects that it's form has on society is beyond most. When the government says, "We are going to raise interest rates.", essentially they are squeezing credit and decreasing the rate of inflation. It will curtail consumption and slow what they consider would be a heated economy.

The ramifications are many and varied. The homeowner may only understand that his mortgage payments are going to go up when he renews - "Darn it all! Why do they have to raise interest rates anyway?".

So really, lack of information is part of the problem. But a government that wishes to manage an economy will design it to be managed eliminating barriers to it's ability to manage it entirely. One of the barriers is people wishing to have control of their own financial futures. If people are controlling their own financial futures what is the need for government to take over entire control of the economy. They have to protect people from bank failures and the vagaries of the free market so financial ruin for people who have no control over and through no fault of their own are suffering. If government educated people about why bank failures occur (basically poor management and banking policies)they might know what to look for and if their money were a guarantee in itself of a store of wealth they could get through the vagaries of a free market economy. No one is going to be manufacturing buggy whips forever although at the time it may appear to be so. The money a person saves should not lose value over time. That's part of why money becomes money. One shouldn't have to risk losing their savings on the stock market or an investment to recover or keep up with lost value on their store of wealth although risk for greater gain must remain a choice. There is no security in the erosion of one's store of wealth, which is essentially the result of a policy of constant inflation.

I have to add that even economists argue among themselves about what money should be and all I can say is that there are certain purposes that are achieved with the different monetary systems. A fiat currency system gives governments tools to manage an economy and with that vast powers. Their failures and/or mismanagement affect all of us and often the economy gets the blame. Opposition parties will blame the governing party but the governing party will blame the economy as if their policies are not in the least efficacious in contributing to the state of an economy. Only in good times were they efficacious.

Sound money, allows the people to keep some power over their financial future. But the trade off is the power of government is then restricted as it can't spend willy-nilly and raising taxes is harder to do as it removes savings from the economy. It does offer the public some leverage over government.

Edited April 8, 2010 by Pliny

[bush_cheney2004]

Ultimately, they are poor individual choices. But that begs the question why the majority is living with debt and making those poor choices? Are wyly and Waldo correct, people in general are stupid? Are they just shallow creatures selfishly satisfying their desires? Most are not stupid but capable of understanding, and most are not selfishly satisfying their desires, but realize they have a responsibility beyond themselves...

Not sure what you mean by this....as many do live selfishly beyond there means. Emulating mismanaged businesses is not an excuse. Ironically, it is the poor who are best prepared to weather the downfall, because they have very little to lose below social supports.

[Pliny]

Not sure what you mean by this....as many do live selfishly beyond there means. Emulating mismanaged businesses is not an excuse. Ironically, it is the poor who are best prepared to weather the downfall, because they have very little to lose below social supports.

So are they stupid or is this behavior fostered by our monetary system. It is not unreasonable to think that someone will take advantage of an opportunity of easy credit to have something now instead of later. Nor that someone else will, upon learning of the opportunity also take advantage of it. Some will. Some won't. Nevertheless, loans given easily, for specific goods such as housing drive up the price of housing, and like a snowball rolling down a hill it gathers momentum until easy credit and tighter monetary policies are ended. Some of the earliest participants will have made a good deal and will have made some money on the inflated prices of a speculative good. Those late in the game, usually those with the least amount of leverage, will suffer when the boom times end. All in all, it is quite unfair for government to do such a thing even though it is done to provide housing to those who can not afford it in the name of the common good. AND THEN...they unconscionably blame the bust on speculative greed.

Of course, you are right about the irony of the poor unable to contribute to participate in society at all.

[Bonam]

Ultimately, they are poor individual choices. But that begs the question why the majority is living with debt and making those poor choices? Are wyly and Waldo correct, people in general are stupid?

I don't know if that is wyly/waldo's position. I do think that many people in general are ignorant of financial matters, yes. Many random people I talk to complain about things like credit card interest rates (when there is NO reason to ever pay a cent of credit card interest), or they buy big screen TVs even though they are already in debt, or they go out to eat every day when they clearly can't afford to be doing so. These are all remarkably poor choices, and these are not stupid people I am talking to but mostly engineers and scientists. From my observations the correlation between intelligence and financial literacy is weak at best.

Are they just shallow creatures selfishly satisfying their desires? Most are not stupid but capable of understanding, and most are not selfishly satisfying their desires, but realize they have a responsibility beyond themselves.

I disagree with this part. First of all, the satisfaction of one's own goals, wants, and needs (material, spiritual, romantic, etc) is life's primary purpose. Working towards these ends is not "selfishness" but life. Individuals have no responsibility beyond themselves other than not infringing upon the rights of others. Claiming that individuals have a responsibility to society is collectivist ideology.

Just getting people to understand what money is and isn't, is difficult enough. Most will tell you it is a medium of exchange but that is only a part of what defines money and is more just a definition of a currency. The effects that it's form has on society is beyond most. When the government says, "We are going to raise interest rates.", essentially they are squeezing credit and decreasing the rate of inflation. It will curtail consumption and slow what they consider would be a heated economy. The ramifications are many and varied. The homeowner may only understand that his mortgage payments are going to go up when he renews - "Darn it all! Why do they have to raise interest rates anyway?".

I agree, the system can be hard to understand and many people lack even a rudimentary knowledge. Making this information more clearly available and enhancing education on the topic would be a good approach to remedy this situation. Ultimately, however, many individuals simply do not care to learn about their finances, and will go on living from pay cheque to pay cheque even if they have well paying jobs.

So really, lack of information is part of the problem. But a government that wishes to manage an economy will design it to be managed eliminating barriers to it's ability to manage it entirely. One of the barriers is people wishing to have control of their own financial futures. If people are controlling their own financial futures what is the need for government to take over entire control of the economy.

I agree, this may be the "end outcome" of a society where government wants to control the economy. However, I don't think we are there yet, not by a longshot. While government does interfere with the economy to a large extent, there is still sufficient economic freedom for individuals to secure their own futures.

The money a person saves should not lose value over time. That's part of why money becomes money. One shouldn't have to risk losing their savings on the stock market or an investment to recover or keep up with lost value on their store of wealth although risk for greater gain must remain a choice. There is no security in the erosion of one's store of wealth, which is essentially the result of a policy of constant inflation.

There are insured savings accounts at normal financial institutions that offer interest rates typically at or slightly above inflation. There are no real risks associated with holding money in these savings accounts (short of simultaneous bankruptcy of the bank and of the Canadian government which insures these accounts).

Sound money, allows the people to keep some power over their financial future. But the trade off is the power of government is then restricted as it can't spend willy-nilly and raising taxes is harder to do as it removes savings from the economy. It does offer the public some leverage over government.

I definitely agree with you on our general desire for the limitation of government power and empowerment of individuals. My argument is simply that government power in Canada is not yet so great that it totally inhibits individuals from having control over their own future.

Edited April 9, 2010 by Bonam

[Pliny]

I don't know if that is wyly/waldo's position. I do think that many people in general are ignorant of financial matters, yes. Many random people I talk to complain about things like credit card interest rates (when there is NO reason to ever pay a cent of credit card interest), or they buy big screen TVs even though they are already in debt, or they go out to eat every day when they clearly can't afford to be doing so. These are all remarkably poor choices, and these are not stupid people I am talking to but mostly engineers and scientists. From my observations the correlation between intelligence and financial literacy is weak at best.

Agreed

I disagree with this part. First of all, the satisfaction of one's own goals, wants, and needs (material, spiritual, romantic, etc) is life's primary purpose. Working towards these ends is not "selfishness" but life. Individuals have no responsibility beyond themselves other than not infringing upon the rights of others. Claiming that individuals have a responsibility to society is collectivist ideology.

I don't claim individuals have a responsibility to society. It is in the best interests of the individual to freely participate or not as he sees fit and contribute to society to realize his own goals, wants and needs. Being a hermit is the alternative. The collectivist ideology turns responsibility for society over to the State and leaves the general populace with no responsibility for society. He is supposed to be an ant and do his job to keep the anthill going. This is a forsaking of his own goals and wants and needs and is simply a robotic enforced contribution with no responsibility to society. The collectivist ideology may state that the individual has a responsibility to society but the end result of that is for the State to dictate the terms of his duties. There must be a balance for an individual to feel whole, and it is true that balance will vary for each individual but it must remain under his free will unless he is destructive to those around him not respecting the sanctity of person and property that is afforded him. Co-operation and interaction with others to be of benefit to the person demands a contribution equal to the the benefit only - not more and not less and the terms of the contribution and benefit should be of his free will to agree upon.

The collectivist ruse of giving back to the community is a guilt trip perpetrated on the individual and groups by the Statist. Your interaction and co-operation is all that is necessary to give to the community in what ever way you feel is best for yourself and the satisfaction of your own goals, wants and needs.

I agree, the system can be hard to understand and many people lack even a rudimentary knowledge. Making this information more clearly available and enhancing education on the topic would be a good approach to remedy this situation. Ultimately, however, many individuals simply do not care to learn about their finances, and will go on living from pay cheque to pay cheque even if they have well paying jobs.

Sadly true and a public education seems to contribute to that instead of being a remedy.

I agree, this may be the "end outcome" of a society where government wants to control the economy. However, I don't think we are there yet, not by a longshot. While government does interfere with the economy to a large extent, there is still sufficient economic freedom for individuals to secure their own futures.

No. We are not there yet. We need to vote ourselves more entitlements and benefits. That is what needs to be driven home. The progressive march towards more social programs and satisfying the demands of special interests will march us there. It is a threat to our ability to secure our own futures.

There are insured savings accounts at normal financial institutions that offer interest rates typically at or slightly above inflation. There are no real risks associated with holding money in these savings accounts (short of simultaneous bankruptcy of the bank and of the Canadian government which insures these accounts).

Well, when banks were paying interests rates of ten and twelve percent interest it was great. The interest rate on mortgages and loans was around 18%. That was in the early 80's. Lots of people lost their homes. It was pretty bad all around. The people who enjoyed that had no mortgages and money in the bank. Mostly, seniors who owned their home and had some money saved were in that position. Young people and businesses paid the price. The thing is that the interest rates were upped to fight the inflating of the money supply that occurred in the late seventies. So although the policies may work for some they don't work for others and it isn't easy to plan when the government attempts to control wages and prices with such tools as manipulating the money supply and the interest rates.

Interest rates are supposed to reflect the demand for money. Governments are not supposed to decide what the demand for money should be but they do to stabilize the economy. We can see it gets unstable at times so how does that happen when they tell us their policies stabilize the economy?

I definitely agree with you on our general desire for the limitation of government power and empowerment of individuals. My argument is simply that government power in Canada is not yet so great that it totally inhibits individuals from having control over their own future.

Yes. Not yet. Will we vote to shrink government or grow it?

[Bonam]

No. We are not there yet. We need to vote ourselves more entitlements and benefits. That is what needs to be driven home. The progressive march towards more social programs and satisfying the demands of special interests will march us there. It is a threat to our ability to secure our own futures.

I agree. In fact, given the conventional view of the future (that it will be largely the same as the present), I would say this is probably one of if not the most important dangers facing western civilizations.

My opinion on this, however, is that technological progress will likely make the provision of such entitlements a basically negligible drain on resources, even as the proportion of society that relies upon such handouts approaches 100%. In this way the crisis will likely be avoided. People will basically be able to do whatever they feel like while automated processes easily satisfy all our needs and reasonable wants.

I am not yet quite clear in my own thinking as to how to reconcile my individualist philosophy with my view of technological progress and how it will impact society over the next few decades.

Yes. Not yet. Will we vote to shrink government or grow it?

Unfortunately there is not really any option that we can vote for that stands for shrinking government. Both the liberals and the conservatives preside over the endless expansion of government (and of course the NDP would be far worse).

Edited April 9, 2010 by Bonam

[Pliny]

My opinion on this, however, is that technological progress will likely make the provision of such entitlements a basically negligible drain on resources, even as the proportion of society that relies upon such handouts approaches 100%. In this way the crisis will likely be avoided. People will basically be able to do whatever they feel like while automated processes easily satisfy all our needs and reasonable wants.

A vision? an ideology? At least it is optimistic. The means is, of course, absent.

Will government be the means? That is the question.

I am not yet quite clear in my own thinking as to how to reconcile my individualist philosophy with my view of technological progress and how it will impact society over the next few decades.

This is a very valid question. May I offer that technological progress must be defined by it's purpose. Does it satisfy your individualist philosophy regarding it's impact on society or does it satisfy the State? I think that is more your question.

I did want to add comment to my last post regarding "contributing to the community".

I would have to ask, "Who is the community?". If the community is not us then who is it? Why should anyone ask us the question of what we, or any member of the community, are giving back to the community. We comprise it. What is this ethereal entity called the community but us? I find it an harassment and a bullying to ask that question of a member who comprises the community. The implication is that my participation as an active member and participant in the community is somehow inadequate. The community would not exist if each did not already contribute and benefit from it. It would be a State if people were made to feel they need to contribute to the community. The fact is that the community exists and if someone were not contributing to it they would not be considered a part of the community. Let's not ask people or corporations or groups to "be" the community by speciously arguing they are somehow not part of it.

Sorry for that rant on that. It isn't entirely pertinent to our discussion but is a concept I wished to elucidate upon for my own broadening.

Edited April 10, 2010 by Pliny

[Bonam]

This is a very valid question. May I offer that technological progress must be defined by it's purpose. Does it satisfy your individualist philosophy regarding it's impact on society or does it satisfy the State? I think that is more your question.

Well, my views on technological progress would probably best be discussed in a separate thread. However, I would suggest that it is not really relevant what its purpose is, but rather that it is an inevitable consequence of an even partially free economy. The rate of technological progress is constantly accelerating, and future advances build on preceding ones in such a way that it is impossible to foresee exactly what the results of such progress will be. From the individual's point of view, improving technology allows the individual to do more, to satisfy more of their wants, needs, and goals, and to conceive of wants and needs and goals that could not have existed previously.

The reality is though that increasing technology creates an ever increasing interconnectedness between individuals. Even putting aside the issue of government, one can see that as humans begin to use their technology to colonize other worlds, to live in space, etc, the survival of the communities that will be built there will be entirely dependent on the cooperative action of the individuals living in them. Whether they are administered by a government, a corporate body, or an artificial intelligence, it seems that individualism would necessarily be curtailed to some extent in such circumstances.

And back on Earth, as we develop technology to control the climate, to prevent natural disasters, to eliminate disease, to indefinitely extend human life, to create new land masses out of the oceans, who will make the decisions? How could decisions that affect millions or billions be made according to the precepts of individualism?

These are the kinds of issues I have not yet been able to think of satisfactory answers to. Basically what I am seeking is to find a way to reconcile/unify the Randian view of morality and ethics (which revolves around reason and individualism) and the Kurzweilian view of the future (where exponentially accelerating technological progress completely transforms our society on the most fundamental level within the next several decades).

Edited April 10, 2010 by Bonam

[Pliny]

Well, my views on technological progress would probably best be discussed in a separate thread. However, I would suggest that it is not really relevant what its purpose is, but rather that it is an inevitable consequence of an even partially free economy.

I disagree. It's purpose is relevant. The needs of the State will not produce the same technology as the needs of the individual. Therefore, the shape of future society depends upon the purpose of the technology. So if the State is us we all contribute to our future. If the State is a dictator the future is his ideal and technology will cater to that.

The reality is though that increasing technology creates an ever increasing interconnectedness between individuals.

I think you mean here an increasing interconnectedness between more individuals. Our sphere of interconnection has increased.

Even putting aside the issue of government, one can see that as humans begin to use their technology to colonize other worlds, to live in space, etc, the survival of the communities that will be built there will be entirely dependent on the cooperative action of the individuals living in them. Whether they are administered by a government, a corporate body, or an artificial intelligence, it seems that individualism would necessarily be curtailed to some extent in such circumstances.

And back on Earth, as we develop technology to control the climate, to prevent natural disasters, to eliminate disease, to indefinitely extend human life, to create new land masses out of the oceans, who will make the decisions? How could decisions that affect millions or billions be made according to the precepts of individualism?

These are the kinds of issues I have not yet been able to think of satisfactory answers to. Basically what I am seeking is to find a way to reconcile/unify the Randian view of morality and ethics (which revolves around reason and individualism) and the Kurzweilian view of the future (where exponentially accelerating technological progress completely transforms our society on the most fundamental level within the next several decades).

Well, I think I understand.

Out in space there is a community and you see the importance of everyone for their own benefit working as a community. Contrary to that the individual must have freedom to act upon his own freewill. You believe in that I think and that the State should not be oppressive. So how, indeed do we make decisions that affect millions or billions.

We form groups that accomplish what we together cannot accomplish alone. Complete individualism or complete Statism are ideals. I haven't read anything by Kurzweil but I know Rand is an idealist.

I think, to be realistic, one must not be exclusive of the other. The individual should not be entirely overwhelmed by any group nor should an individual attempt to entirely be the State. Under mob rule or Statist totalitarianism the individual's freewill is lost. The scenario you describe of a community in space tells you the importance of co-operation for not only the benefit of the community but the existence of it and the individual. So the individual must be part of the community and the community must be considered the totality of each individual.

Where we go wrong in a society is where government makes the individual unable to or nullifies the individual's personal contribution to the creation of the community. The individual does not then feel a part of it. He feels separate. To get benefit from society you have to be a part of it's creation. If you only take and do not give then you are not part of it's creation. Asking someone to give back to the community who is already a contributing and active member is a nullification of his contribution. One should be asking those who are not contributing, to give back to the community. Of course, if something is given but not asked for, you should not have to give anything back. That's our system of welfare. What needs to be asked of welfare recipients is how they can help the community. Usually, they are already so overwhelmed as individuals they will not know or have any answers but just of their own free will if they decide to pick up a piece of litter on the street and throw it in the trash they have helped and contributed to the creation of society as most people would like to see society. It is more or less finding out what the extant vision of society is by most of it's members and doing that. The individual will then feel a part of the creation of the community. It is a benefit to himself as an individual and to society.

I haven't much time today but hope I was clear enough in what I have said to make some sense here. You are more than just your individual self you are a part of a community and society. To be part of it you have to agree with the concept of it's direction and future vision. In order to know that it has to be told to you or you have to tell others what yours is until a broad agreement is reached and the future vision is clear.

One of the problems of government is that vision is not clear. Some are trying to impose their vision on others without asking for your contribution to that future. They are only asking you to pay for it.

[Bonam]

I disagree. It's purpose is relevant. The needs of the State will not produce the same technology as the needs of the individual. Therefore, the shape of future society depends upon the purpose of the technology. So if the State is us we all contribute to our future. If the State is a dictator the future is his ideal and technology will cater to that.

In a nation completely controlled by a government or a dictator which leaves no room for personal freedoms, technological progress would slow to a crawl (in the absence of the existence of other states around it from which it can steal technological ideas). It is the competitive free market which allows for innovation to be rewarded and thus engenders the acceleration of technological progress. As long as that is the case, the technology that is developed will largely be directionless, a result of multiple independent entities (individuals, corporations, government labs, etc). With the occasional exception (for example the quest for fusion power), technology will develop following an evolutionary process, where the end result is not known until it is arrived at.

Thus I think that the "purpose" of technological development is a moot point. In a society free enough to allow for rapid technological progress, the progress will be mainly directionless. In a society where the government controls the direction of progress, progress will be hopelessly slow anyway and not a significant factor in social change.

Well, I think I understand.

Out in space there is a community and you see the importance of everyone for their own benefit working as a community. Contrary to that the individual must have freedom to act upon his own freewill. You believe in that I think and that the State should not be oppressive. So how, indeed do we make decisions that affect millions or billions.

We form groups that accomplish what we together cannot accomplish alone.

As soon as you form a group that has the power to affect the lives of millions or billions, some people's individual rights will be trampled over. Even if the group has the best of intentions and the highest respect for individual rights, it is simply an inevitable outcome. The other thing to consider is that the issue is not necessarily forming a group to accomplish what we "cannot accomplish alone".

Arguably, using technology, a single individual could affect change that could impact millions or billions, with or without their consent. That creates a high chance of abuse. Does that mean that as we advance, all the fruits of our progress which could empower individuals must be kept out of their hands? Should the results of technological advance be wielded only by statelike entities, while individuals are relegated to the use of effectively "stone age" technology?

Today, we keep dangerous technology that could affect many people out of the hands of individuals. For example, weapons of mass destruction. Keeping access to such technology highly restricted seems to make sense. But what about in the future, when we consider such things as self-replicating nano-assemblers? These could have enormous useful potential for individuals to use, but could also be extremely destructive on a large scale if malevolently misused. Does that mean that such technology must forever remain highly restricted? This is but one example... there are countless others, anything to do with biotechnology, nanotechnology, robotics, and artificial intelligence, has the potential for both immense benefit to individuals for their personal and commercial use as well as for large scale danger.

How can we intelligently draw a line? Where does the power of the state to restrict individual's access to advanced technology end? If the state alone has access to these advancements then it is only a single step away from tyranny if it chooses to put these advances to coercive use. What safeguards can exist in such a situation to prevent such tyranny?

Complete individualism or complete Statism are ideals. I haven't read anything by Kurzweil but I know Rand is an idealist.

I highly recommend this essay:

The Law of Accelerating Returns

If you've not been exposed to some of these ideas before it may read like science fiction, but most of it is well justified in scientific fact and current trends. It is not too long of a read and gives a good idea of what I mean when I refer to accelerating technological progress and its implications.

I think, to be realistic, one must not be exclusive of the other. The individual should not be entirely overwhelmed by any group nor should an individual attempt to entirely be the State. Under mob rule or Statist totalitarianism the individual's freewill is lost. The scenario you describe of a community in space tells you the importance of co-operation for not only the benefit of the community but the existence of it and the individual. So the individual must be part of the community and the community must be considered the totality of each individual.

The question is how can a community be created that is sufficient for its own survival and the survival of the individuals within it without overly restricting the freedom of these individuals and meddling in their affairs. Looking at the states and communities that exist in the world today I don't see an ideal model.

I haven't much time today but hope I was clear enough in what I have said to make some sense here. You are more than just your individual self you are a part of a community and society. To be part of it you have to agree with the concept of it's direction and future vision. In order to know that it has to be told to you or you have to tell others what yours is until a broad agreement is reached and the future vision is clear.

I don't know if I like this kind of definition of being part of society. It rests on an assumption of striving to reach for some idealized future, which may or may not ever be practically attained. It is similar to the mystic's promise of a perfect "afterlife" as soon as you finish suffering through this one, or the socialist's promise of a utopian state to exist in the future, after you and your children are sucked dry in the effort to build it. Both are false promises. A society should not be about some future vision, but about the present. The future will be what it will be, and each individual should be allowed to shape their own future as much as possible.

Edited April 10, 2010 by Bonam

[Pliny]

In a nation completely controlled by a government or a dictator which leaves no room for personal freedoms, technological progress would slow to a crawl (in the absence of the existence of other states around it from which it can steal technological ideas). It is the competitive free market which allows for innovation to be rewarded and thus engenders the acceleration of technological progress. As long as that is the case, the technology that is developed will largely be directionless, a result of multiple independent entities (individuals, corporations, government labs, etc). With the occasional exception (for example the quest for fusion power), technology will develop following an evolutionary process, where the end result is not known until it is arrived at.

Thus I think that the "purpose" of technological development is a moot point. In a society free enough to allow for rapid technological progress, the progress will be mainly directionless. In a society where the government controls the direction of progress, progress will be hopelessly slow anyway and not a significant factor in social change.

I agree with your point that technology will be hopelessly slow, that fact rests in the concept that the "ideal" has already been reached and change is not necessary nor will it be allowed - especially for the less free. Any technology developed will not get broad public issue.

As soon as you form a group that has the power to affect the lives of millions or billions, some people's individual rights will be trampled over. Even if the group has the best of intentions and the highest respect for individual rights, it is simply an inevitable outcome. The other thing to consider is that the issue is not necessarily forming a group to accomplish what we "cannot accomplish alone".

The fundamental dynamic of a group is that there is agreement. The scope of the group is the scope of it's agreement. Outside of the group are different groups with different agreements. Although one is a member of a group he may not agree with other individual son matters not within the scope of the group. This is why a large group can only have a very broad and general scope. It's agreements must be solid to hold the group together. For instance, there are human rights, all, on a national level should have the same rights as each other. The rights must be very non-specific. The sanctity of person and property includes everyone. There shouldn't be any rights below that as far as the nation goes. There shouldn't be women's rights or gay rights or racial rights extended form that size of a group. As an individual you should have the ability to say I don't like gays, or women or other races and that is up to you. But you do, in order to remain in the larger group have to agree to the sanctity of their person and property.

Arguably, using technology, a single individual could affect change that could impact millions or billions, with or without their consent. That creates a high chance of abuse. Does that mean that as we advance, all the fruits of our progress which could empower individuals must be kept out of their hands? Should the results of technological advance be wielded only by statelike entities, while individuals are relegated to the use of effectively "stone age" technology?

In trying to create the concept of an ideal we must recognize that the ideal will never be achieved. There must be built in flexibility to change direction and that is what freedom gives. The State is not as important because it should only guarantee as it's mandate that we as a society maintain that flexibility. It should have laws restricting it and it's freedoms should be in seeking better means to keep it's mandate of a flexible society that can adjust to and meet it's challenges aas they present themselves.

Today, we keep dangerous technology that could affect many people out of the hands of individuals. For example, weapons of mass destruction. Keeping access to such technology highly restricted seems to make sense. But what about in the future, when we consider such things as self-replicating nano-assemblers? These could have enormous useful potential for individuals to use, but could also be extremely destructive on a large scale if malevolently misused. Does that mean that such technology must forever remain highly restricted? This is but one example... there are countless others, anything to do with biotechnology, nanotechnology, robotics, and artificial intelligence, has the potential for both immense benefit to individuals for their personal and commercial use as well as for large scale danger.

How can we intelligently draw a line? Where does the power of the state to restrict individual's access to advanced technology end? If the state alone has access to these advancements then it is only a single step away from tyranny if it chooses to put these advances to coercive use. What safeguards can exist in such a situation to prevent such tyranny?

I suppose the line to be drawn is in our responsibility to others. Americans do not wish to be responsible for Russians, politically or technologically. In general, I imagine they care for each other more as individuals than as political or technological entitites. They are competitors in that respect.

The best safeguards are in keeping power in the hands of individuals and the State can only act when all, the highest majority, individuals agree it should. There will be

some that will always disagree with the majority. But governments restricted to act by the people can only be retrained through economic means which is why sound money is so important to world safety. A government that can print all the money or create all the money it needs for it's purposes is one that is out of control.

I highly recommend this essay:

The Law of Accelerating Returns

If you've not been exposed to some of these ideas before it may read like science fiction, but most of it is well justified in scientific fact and current trends. It is not too long of a read and gives a good idea of what I mean when I refer to accelerating technological progress and its implications.

"it is so exquisitely intelligent that it can harness the most subtle aspects of the laws to manipulate matter and energy to its will. So it would at least appear that intelligence is more powerful than physics.

Perhaps what I should say is that intelligence is more powerful than cosmology. That is, once matter evolves into smart matter (matter fully saturated with intelligence), it can manipulate matter and energy to do whatever it wants."

If it can manipulate matter to do whatever it wants then perhaps it can create it?

It's always interesting to me to read such contemplations.

I believe he is correct, we have to define intelligence now but it gets back to consciousness.

WE are manipulating matter and energy as humans. I believe this is a via and if consciousness created matter and energy then the human form is there to manipulate it in an ever-evolving progression. I believe he is close to the truth.

What I have decided is that the answer lies in understanding "time", and I don't think Stephen Hawkings has it down pat. The concept of time is about persistence. It is also simply a measurement of the relative motion of objects. "Persistence" is the key though. There is no persistence of matter. It is not in the future and it is not in the past, it is only now. Honestly, there is no time. The past only exists in our memories and the future in our imagination. So how do we get the apparency of the persistence of a universe? The only answer that I can see is that it is created and destroyed every moment in a consecutive nanosecond vibration. How's that for reading like science fiction?

The question is how can a community be created that is sufficient for its own survival and the survival of the individuals within it without overly restricting the freedom of these individuals and meddling in their affairs. Looking at the states and communities that exist in the world today I don't see an ideal model.

If intelligence moulds matter and energy then humans do so on a grosser physical scale.

We cannot find an ideal model as any ideal would be an absolute. The ideal would thus contain no creation only participation with expected actions. Stories of Orwell in 1984 are not about finding an ideal. They are about the concept of an ideal bieng established and the problems of maintaining it.

I don't know if I like this kind of definition of being part of society. It rests on an assumption of striving to reach for some idealized future, which may or may not ever be practically attained. It is similar to the mystic's promise of a perfect "afterlife" as soon as you finish suffering through this one, or the socialist's promise of a utopian state to exist in the future, after you and your children are sucked dry in the effort to build it. Both are false promises. A society should not be about some future vision, but about the present. The future will be what it will be, and each individual should be allowed to shape their own future as much as possible.

The ideal can never be a static state which is why freedom is so important. The totalitarian is only maintaining the ideal reached and freedoms are restricted to the maintenance and exaltation of the State as it exists not to a progression of change towards an ideal. We can have a concept of an ideal but we must never arrive there because our ideal is not everyone's.

Edited April 11, 2010 by Pliny