Elon Musk explaining why “billionaires should not be taxed”

[tsuki]

It is true that there is issue with how the government allocates capital, but there is even greater issue of balance in capitalism.

Healthy democratic governments answer to people through election. People, on the other hand, care for their own well-being. Of course, democracy is difficult because people's influence is indirect. This is a closed feedback loop that optimizes people's well-being.

Healthy companies, however don't answer to the population, but rather to investors, and the only incentive of investors is to make more money. We live in a world in which a dead tree is more valuable than one that is alive, or where a person is more valuable glued to the screen watching ads. This is an open feedback loop that optimizes the amount of money investors have, at the expense of everything else.

Sure, there may be conscious businessmen that take this things into account, but this is not how we build systems. In systems, we look for general trends, not for exceptions.

[captainamerica]

41 minutes ago, tsuki said:

It is true that there is issue with how the government allocates capital, but there is even greater issue of balance in capitalism.

Healthy democratic governments answer to people through election. People, on the other hand, care for their own well-being. Of course, democracy is difficult because people's influence is indirect. This is a closed feedback loop that optimizes people's well-being.

Healthy companies, however don't answer to the population, but rather to investors, and the only incentive of investors is to make more money. We live in a world in which a dead tree is more valuable than one that is alive, or where a person is more valuable glued to the screen watching ads. This is an open feedback loop that optimizes the amount of money investors have, at the expense of everything else.

Sure, there may be conscious businessmen that take this things into account, but this is not how we build systems. In systems, we look for general trends, not for exceptions.

This is Stage Blue/Green's strawman of Systems Thinking. Including "premature Green" where Stage Orange and Rational capabilities are not integrated. 

In this, you are just using buzzwords of Systems Thinking. It apparently looks like someone is using Systems Thinking but that is not actually the case. 

Not your fault, since people judge so much based on Spiral Dynamics on here people on the forum started using these. Minor usage on Memes and Reddit as well due to the culture war. 

Edited January 2, 2022 by captainamerica

[captainamerica]

12 minutes ago, captainamerica said:

This is Stage Blue/Green's strawman of Systems Thinking. Including "premature Green" where Stage Orange and Rational capabilities are not integrated. 

 

Generally speaking, I have noticed that people in such cultural wars have a Stage Blue understanding of both economics or progress or wealth creation at a collective level and wealth creation at an individual level as well.  

They may be good people, say they stand for LGBTQ rights, so in that area they are Green. But in this area, they are really Stage Blue. 

Most of the time I have noticed they have Stage Blue understanding and value/belief system in this area but it is easily conflated with Stage Green. 

Edited January 2, 2022 by captainamerica

[captainamerica]

4 minutes ago, captainamerica said:

Generally speaking, I have noticed that people in such cultural wars have a Stage Blue understanding of both economics or progress or wealth creation at a collective level and wealth creation at an individual level as well.  

They may be good people, say they stand for LGBTQ rights, so in that area they are Green. But in this area, they are really Stage Blue. 

Most of the time I have noticed they have Stage Blue understanding and value/belief system in this area but it is easily conflated with Stage Green. 

On top of this, there is a spike of people who are really Stage Blue but with a veneer of Stage Green in the US. It is conflated with Stage Green.

Just like Trump was Stage Red with a veneer of Stage Orange. He was conflated with Stage Orange by many, even on this forum. 

It is curious. 

[captainamerica]

1 hour ago, Eph75 said:

Ah yes, my "probably not" is 100% assumption 

No problemo. 

[tsuki]

@captainamerica I would prefer if you addressed the contents of my posts rather than comment on my character.

How exactly am I strawmanning systems thinking? Since you noted that I mean well, please paint a more complete picture that shows the areas that I missed.

[tsuki]

@captainamerica Since you also commented on my use of terminology, please show how this use is incorrect, or incomplete.

 

[Raptorsin7]

@captainamerica I think its useful to address individual beliefs and perspectives according to sd values. So some people have sd green beliefs about x topic, but on another topic they have sd blue beliefs.

I think it explains the cognitive dissonance and misunderstanding of wealth creation and allocation on this thread

[Gesundheit2]

Don't worry about it, El. I'll just donate to you whatever they tax you.

Edited January 2, 2022 by Gesundheit2

[captainamerica]

1 hour ago, tsuki said:

@captainamerica I would prefer if you addressed the contents of my posts rather than comment on my character.

How exactly am I strawmanning systems thinking? Since you noted that I mean well, please paint a more complete picture that shows the areas that I missed.

Sure brother we in it together.

The problem is it is too complex to go into detail here. Systems Thinking is no easy subject to explain. But I will try.

 

2 hours ago, tsuki said:

It is true that there is issue with how the government allocates capital, but there is even greater issue of balance in capitalism.

Healthy democratic governments answer to people through election. People, on the other hand, care for their own well-being. Of course, democracy is difficult because people's influence is indirect. This is a closed feedback loop that optimizes people's well-being.

Healthy companies, however don't answer to the population, but rather to investors, and the only incentive of investors is to make more money. We live in a world in which a dead tree is more valuable than one that is alive, or where a person is more valuable glued to the screen watching ads. This is an open feedback loop that optimizes the amount of money investors have, at the expense of everything else.

Sure, there may be conscious businessmen that take this things into account, but this is not how we build systems. In systems, we look for general trends, not for exceptions.

 

• Your view does not take into account the various forces of psychology, consciousness and technology. In a society as collective technology improves so does collective consciousness level and this what the Spiral Dynamics model is based on directly or indirectly. This changes the incentives to higher and higher consciousness. This is a general trend. If this was not true there would be no Spiral Dynamics or other such model. People think SD model is about just inner growth but in reality it is mostly about the growth of technology which then changes the incentives and this cycle repeats. 
• Healthy companies do answer to people who buy their product. The incentives of the consumers combines with the incentives of the company. And this creates very complex dynamics. You are predicting the dynamics by missing one key component, the incentives of customers and the people in general. When people are aware that they make different choices, if the people are unaware they are going to vote for that policy anyways if let's say the govt. was given more and more revenue the choice of the people will be reflected anyways but in a greatly inefficient and uninnovative manner. This also combines with a new incentive created for the govt. and politicians which I have highlighted below. 
• People value quality of life, not the amount of money. This can be seen in general trend as well of the quality of life of most people increasing. There have been forces against that by Money Printing for eg.. But if companies and investors and their consumers valued money more than anything the society would be creating truckloads of jewellery with gold, platinum, instead of technology, schools, restaurants. Instead the Society is optimized around people increasing their Quality of Life with time. This is the General Trend.
• You may say that the Companies brainwash people to pay them or buy their products right. But again after Mobile and Internet revolution people are only becoming more and more aware. Hence the incentives changed again. This is the real General trend. With Technology growth it is impossible for incentives to not change. First it was the printing press, now this. With technology and science growth it becomes inevitable.
• Another example that Capitalism leads to consciousness growth that I have analysed first hand and was very fascinated by it is that employees in China and India earning 750 Dollars Per month would have earned about 250-300 USD per month if it was not for the OS and Semiconductor revolution. Under capitalism the India's consciousness levels grew and is growing faster than even America in the past if you look at history. When people are going out of poverty they think about the environment, charity etc. That’s what happened in India and China. In fact in China people are more aware then the CCP or their Govt. how about that.
• In Systems Thinking we do look for General trends but your view of incentives is also very unholistic because Systems Thinking requires an understanding of all these forces combined, consumer incentives, incentives of developing countries, consumer choice combining with company interest, education, increase in education directly or indirectly as technology increases (first it was the Printing Press), technology, understanding costs between alternative paths and very sound understanding of Psychology. The last one is very hard if Systems thinking is the goal. It comes with time.
• There is also the incentive of Developed Countries to prevent "cutting trees" as the people become more aware. Policies are placed for it. Of Foreign Countries who have escaped dire Poverty, their Govt. have an incentive to prevent the exploitation of its own people. You will see in countries with the most Poverty there is no Govt. and there cannot be. Like Afghanistan for eg. There is Technological growth rendering previous technologies ineffective. The effect of these has to be understood with growth in Technology and Cybernetics. It cannot be done in isolation. Also, the incentives of people who deny this are either fear because they are brainwashed by politicians who in turn have incentives to come to power or there is a second class of people who deny this. They are incentivized by democracy because they want communism. And they cannot either hold this view with wanting communism or they cannot communicate this view because it makes them looks selfish then.
• All this does not even take into account the 100x inefficiency of govt. in terms of innovation which does not keep up with Global population growth and their demands, separate from that in Tier 1 the concept of a healthy democracy itself is limited, there is so much manipulation that it creates incentives for someone else to take power to propagandize and harm people Stage Green is not that better at this as well, Costs like Global Competition if the US does not grow in certain industries the Developing Countries will take over and that may be fine but not if done unconsciously, The Cost of not being able to control a part of govt. if too much power is given to it, like the Federal Reserve has too much power but it came premature, the people were not ready for it. When a certain Power is given to a part of the Govt. before the people are ready for it the Govt. runs the people and not people the Govt. This is happening with the Federal Reserve it wreaks havoc and poverty and it is unlikely to be solved anytime soon because people are still not ready. The Cost of giving Govt. a power before the people are ready is huge. Here a new incentive is created for politicians to lie and propagandize and somehow get to the Golden Seat which gives them this power, and this cycle continues. Pentagon does a similar thing to deliberately inflate its budget. I won't be going into details of that here. Progressives are doing this as well by playing both sides of the table and telling the public something else. Even before the Power is completely created for Big Govt. to exist see how incentives for it are already created people are already fighting and manipulating over it. On avg. this manipulation by govt. is serval times more than the manipulation by corporations this is the general trend. It also required a good understanding of psychological forces. One phenomenon for eg. if you promise people free 10 K USD per year, incentives for politicians is created to promise 12K USD next year and come to power, next year another politician 15K, 20L,.... . And this never ends because more and more people, even conservative start wanting free money over time. So if we look at UBI from Systems thinking we have to consider this, not that it cannot be done but the consideration is a must. This is an eg. of Psychological forces that you are missing in analyzing incentives. 
• It is impossible to analyze feedback loops at a collective level without taking in account all these various phenomena and forces. Like you ignored 10 forces and phenomenons in Psychology(geopolitics, incentives for govt. power, the interaction of various groups and lost efficiency due to it and the system-wide costs following, how and by what factors the power of coordinated action increases in a society), 10 in Market Systems, 10 forces, and phenomenons in how Technology and Science grow, etc. That is not Systems Thinking. The conclusion is also incorrect hence.

Systems thinking is hard to learn. Even if you are somehow able to give few hundred hours of learning to it in one year alone you will still be in the beginner level of it. It takes years and hundreds and hundreds of hours of learning plus a lot more Life Experience to truly grasp it. Personally, I consider the fact that I have failed so many times as the primary cause of me being good at it, I don't even consider thousands of hours learning I have put into it as the primary cause. But someone else may choose to see an investment in learning as the primary cause instead of all the Life Experience, that's alright, in that case as well it is a lot of work as mentioned above.

Edited January 2, 2022 by captainamerica

[captainamerica]

1 hour ago, Raptorsin7 said:

@captainamerica I think its useful to address individual beliefs and perspectives according to sd values. So some people have sd green beliefs about x topic, but on another topic they have sd blue beliefs.

I think it explains the cognitive dissonance and misunderstanding of wealth creation and allocation on this thread

Yup.

Also, look at how Progressives brainwash innocent people. Elon Musk is talking about Systems thinking and outcomes and has also highlighted problems like Debt in the past. That goes hand in hand with the Money Printing problem in the US. Yet progressives strawmanned it into he is complaining, manipulating, worrying etc. He is highlighting very correct Systemic problems and phenomenons which will help all.  

I read one Progressive Journalist/Propagandist he said that "the best part of printing a trillion-dollar coin in America is that it is funny, the worst part is that it is funny so people do not take it seriously". The Progressives on the one hand brainwash people with this nonsense on one hand and on another side a person who is highlighting systemic issues correctly is straw manned as well. If not he then with their narratives like rich people are miserable(TYT) , Rich People are evil etc. majority of the competent people are straw manned, giving progressive politicians the power. They play great games.

Edited January 2, 2022 by captainamerica

[captainamerica]

1 hour ago, tsuki said:

@captainamerica Since you also commented on my use of terminology, please show how this use is incorrect, or incomplete.

 

Please check the above.

Feedback loops and Incentives are not analyzed like this. 

To put it simply without Complexity there is no Systems Thinking. You would need a perspective of 4-5 subjects on avg. before analyzing Feedback Loops and Incentives of one thing alone.

Psychology (just become a master of Human Behavior), Technology, Collective Consciousness, Collective Wealth, History, Cybernetics, etc.  You can have your own style and subjects but the avg. is like 4-5 per decision, that is a must and you can take from there based on subject, how many good fundamentals you are covering, etc. (Psychology and Technology is a must, depending on the case History is also needed.  )

 

Edited January 2, 2022 by captainamerica

[tsuki]

58 minutes ago, captainamerica said:

Sure brother we in it together.

The problem is it is too complex to go into detail here. Systems Thinking is no easy subject to explain. But I will try.

You know, there is a limit to the amount of patronizing tone I am willing to stomach.  Back off.

58 minutes ago, captainamerica said:

Healthy companies do answer to people who buy their product. The incentives of the consumers combines with the incentives of the company. And this creates very complex dynamics. You are predicting the dynamics by missing one key component, the incentives of customers and the people in general. When people are aware that they make different choices, if the people are unaware they are going to vote for that policy anyways if let's say the govt. was given more and more revenue the choice of the people will be reflected anyways but in a greatly inefficient and innovative manner.

Please address the fact that the most successful companies don't actually create products for people, but for other companies. For example, the product of technological giants such as Google, Facebook, etc is the influence over people, which is sold to advertising companies. People are not consumers, they are products.

The point about unconscious choices people are making is equally valid for dishonest advertising that targets children, and raises whole generations of customers to be addicted to specific services. This is completely backwards when it comes to the raise of consciousness. 

58 minutes ago, captainamerica said:

People value quality of life, not the amount of money. This can be seen in general trend as well of the quality of life of most people increasing. There have been forces against that by Money Printing for eg.. But if companies and investors and their consumers valued money more than anything the society would be creating truckloads of jewellery with gold, platinum, instead of technology, schools, restaurants. Instead the Society is optimized around people increasing their Quality of Life with time. This is the General Trend.

I never said that people value money. I said explicitly that people value quality of life.

58 minutes ago, captainamerica said:

You may say that the Companies brainwash people to pay them or buy their products right. But again after Mobile and Internet revolution people are only becoming more and more aware. Hence the incentives changed again. This is the real General trend. With Technology growth it is impossible for incentives to not change. First it was the printing press, now this. With technology and science growth it becomes inevitable.

Nope. See mental health statistics and how they correlate with the introduction of mobile technology and social media.

58 minutes ago, captainamerica said:

The Cost of not being able to control a part of govt. if too much power is given to it, like the Federal Reserve has too much power but it came premature, the people were not ready for it. When a certain Power is given to a part of the Govt. before the people are ready for it the Govt. runs the people and not people the Govt. This is happening with the Federal Reserve it wreaks havoc and poverty and it is unlikely to be solved anytime soon because people are still not ready. The Cost of giving Govt. a power before the people are ready is huge. Here a new incentive is created for politicians to lie and propagandize and come to the Seat which gives them this power, and this cycle continues.

You criticize democracy for its latency, the fact that it is possible to leverage the system so that people don't know what is happening, and yet - the exact same argument stands for consumer choice. People stuck in survival mechanisms will choose the most immediate solutions to the most immediate problems. Optimal capital allocation could solve this, if there were incentives to do this, but I still don't think there are.

58 minutes ago, captainamerica said:

Another example that Capitalism leads to consciousness growth that I have analysed first hand and was very fascinated by it is that employees in China and India earning 750 Dollars Per month would have earned about 250-300 USD per month if it was not for the OS and Semiconductor revolution. Under capitalism the India's consciousness levels grew and is growing faster than even America in the past if you look at history. When people are going out of poverty they think about the environment, charity etc. That’s what happened in India and China. In fact in China people are more aware then the CCP or their Govt. how about that.

Raising people out of poverty is good for raising consciousness, but it is not effective at raising consciousness of more developed countries. The general public is concerned with the environment, charity, etc, but not the actual people that create these issues. 

58 minutes ago, captainamerica said:

It is impossible to analyze feedback loops at a collective level without taking in account all these various phenomena and forces. Like you ignored 10 forces and phenomenons in Psychology(geopolitics, incentives for govt. power, the interaction of various groups and lost efficiency due to it and the system-wide costs following, ), 10 in Market Systems, 10 forces, and phenomenons in how Technology and Science grow, etc. That is not Systems Thinking. The conclusion is also incorrect hence.

You are not going to resolve this argument by more patronizing tone and enumerations.

You have zero knowledge about who I am, what is my psychological background and how I apply systems thinking in my day-to-day life. Stop attacking my character and address my points. I feel confident in these two areas of my life and no amount of bashing will make me take you seriously. If your intent is to distract me by creating difficult emotions, then you are successful, but this only serves to prolong this discussion in unhelpful ways because I will be preoccupied with defending my character instead of actually listening to your points.

55 minutes ago, captainamerica said:

Also, look at how Progressives brainwash innocent people. He is talking about Systems thinking and outcomes and has also highlighted problems like debt in the past. That goes hand in hand with Money Printing. Yet progressives strawmanned it into he is complaining, manipulating, worrying etc. He is highlighting very correct Systemic problems and phenomenons.  

Since money printing is a big topic for you, why don't you share your thoughts about this topic?

Edited January 2, 2022 by tsuki

[captainamerica]

@tsuki You just don't get it. 

I am done reasoning with you. 

 

Edited January 2, 2022 by captainamerica

[captainamerica]

14 minutes ago, tsuki said:

1 hour ago, captainamerica said:

Sure brother we in it together.

The problem is it is too complex to go into detail here. Systems Thinking is no easy subject to explain. But I will try.

You know, there is a limit to the amount of patronizing tone I am willing to stomach.  Back off.

It was not a Patronizing tone btw. 

What special value can you give to me or others? Why will I patronize you of all the people?

14 minutes ago, tsuki said:

1 hour ago, captainamerica said:

The Cost of not being able to control a part of govt. if too much power is given to it, like the Federal Reserve has too much power but it came premature, the people were not ready for it. When a certain Power is given to a part of the Govt. before the people are ready for it the Govt. runs the people and not people the Govt. This is happening with the Federal Reserve it wreaks havoc and poverty and it is unlikely to be solved anytime soon because people are still not ready. The Cost of giving Govt. a power before the people are ready is huge. Here a new incentive is created for politicians to lie and propagandize and come to the Seat which gives them this power, and this cycle continues.

You criticize democracy for its latency, the fact that it is possible to leverage the system so that people don't know what is happening, and yet - the exact same argument stands for consumer choice. People stuck in survival mechanisms will choose the most immediate solutions to the most immediate problems. Optimal capital allocation could solve this, if there were incentives to do this, but I still don't think there are.

I have not criticized democracy for Latency in the point you quoted. You claim to understand Psychology enough to do Systems Thinking and then conflate what I said with Latency. 

14 minutes ago, tsuki said:

You have zero knowledge about who I am, what is my psychological background and how I apply systems thinking in my day-to-day life.

 

Edited January 2, 2022 by captainamerica

[Consept]

I guess ultimately the question seems to be, who can do a better job at managing money for the betterment of society? Is it the wealthy corporation owners or is it elected individuals within a democratic system?

Traditionally corporation owners having more power has led to disastrous consequences but there maybe an argument that the corporation owners of today are more leaning toward green and may genuinely want to help mankind. However a counter would be when they have had a lot of power and responsibility they either haven't been able to handle it or have been quite underhanded in their action eg Facebook and Cambridge analytica. 

For me systems are essential as no one person holds all the power, the democratic system has many holes and things that need to be worked on but the intention is a system rather than individual power. It also feels like a throwback having, essentially Kings of industry ruling over us. I think I'd probably more accepting if musk had a basic income and used all the money for the betterment of society rather than even making a profit. 

[captainamerica]

15 minutes ago, Consept said:

I guess ultimately the question seems to be, who can do a better job at managing money for the betterment of society? Is it the wealthy corporation owners or is it elected individuals within a democratic system?

Traditionally corporation owners having more power has led to disastrous consequences but there maybe an argument that the corporation owners of today are more leaning toward green and may genuinely want to help mankind. However a counter would be when they have had a lot of power and responsibility they either haven't been able to handle it or have been quite underhanded in their action eg Facebook and Cambridge analytica. 

For me systems are essential as no one person holds all the power, the democratic system has many holes and things that need to be worked on but the intention is a system rather than individual power. It also feels like a throwback having, essentially Kings of industry ruling over us. I think I'd probably more accepting if musk had a basic income and used all the money for the betterment of society rather than even making a profit. 

what do you mean by basic income can you please share?

Like everyone earning 100 thousand dollars let's say and Musk doing his work you mean?

Edit: I think I got it, no problem.  There are variations of the idea but I believe I know what you are referring to. 

Edited January 2, 2022 by captainamerica

[captainamerica]

21 minutes ago, tsuki said:

Since money printing is a big topic for you, why don't you share your thoughts about this topic?

Already done it many times. See my previous posts in this thread and others.  Let me know if you need help. (not patronizing, I just love it this way. If you don't like it you are welcome to talk to someone else please)

Edited January 2, 2022 by captainamerica

[captainamerica]

The thing about Systems Thinking is that it is not sexy. 

You cannot get laid by explaining Systems Thinking to a girl or a guy at a bar. You can do that with many stage orange ideals, stage green hippie stuff, zodiac, and whatnot.

If someone who is claiming to be doing System Thinking does not understand the core and "dirty" issues of Money Printing, Debt, etc., or at least have respect for them then they are hoodwinking you in all probability. Money Printing for eg. gives rise to like 25 Causes. Not Effects. 25 causes alone are created which then create so many other negative effects. A person who does not know the importance of all these issues is not actually doing Systems Thinking. Systems Thinking is not at all sexy it revolves around a lot of this "dirty" and often tedious work, at times like those boring advanced algebra and statistics classes. 

Edited January 2, 2022 by captainamerica

[tsuki]

13 minutes ago, captainamerica said:

It was not a Patronizing tone btw. 

What special value can you give to me or others? Why will I patronize you of all the people?

Patronizing tone means condescending, looking from above, schooling.

If you disagree with my post, address the points instead of dismissively saying "it's more complicated", listing 50 things that I missed without elaboration, and talking about me to other people as if I weren't here.

If the topic is too complicated for anybody to understand except you (or people you agree with), then don't discuss it on a forum. Denying _any_ validity to what the other person is saying this way is just projecting  arrogance and a sense of intellectual superiority.