Taking people out of extreme poverty and putting them in a house isn't the greatest idea either, even if they never have to pay.

We have the human capital to make public welfare concrete.

More like how to get someone very wrong from the beginning and continue to get it wrong about them even now.

I have posted these ideas in SMP way back many years ago. I have consistently had similar ideas before. Search the concept scientific society in my posts and you will see references going back many years.

It is a state system but i wouldn't call it socialism. The word itself has been corrupted to mean something that is also very negative, totalitarian and an enemy of free thinking and enterprise because of how it was implemented in actual countries that were called socialist.

The basic premise of scientific society is that it can use science and technology and their current state efficiencies to produce a world where all members have basic services that we have agreed originally are necessary to secure a basic level of security and core happiness (before we even started disagreeing on politics) like housing, education, permanent opportunity for employment with many choices for the individual, healthcare, etc in exchange for a minimum of service to the system in functions that secure the sustainability of this evolving system, which eventually aims at creating a world of amazing prosperity and opportunity that only those that enjoy it will be working. Lower level AI will be performing all most uninteresting but necessary functions eventually.

It secures for every citizen/member regardless of participation in employment some core functions like housing, healthcare, access to food and unlimited education etc at a spartan level in terms of the nonessential elements. Everyone is treated the same at the basic level of opportunity and protection from adversity. That level although seen as spartan is intended to improve over time though in correlation with the overall progress of the society.

At the same time the system offers as incentive a substantial improvement from the spartan level to a more enjoyable level for simply being employed within the system. You can call that level 1 above the base. The base is available unconditionally to all, even criminals. There at level 1 however based on merit it is possible for individuals to even rise higher with personal effort and creative work of their own. They can enjoy much better living conditions and luxuries and access to ever expanding range of privileges because their work serves the further advancement of the system. Free enterprises are possible provided they do not lead to conflict with the basic stability of the system in terms of providing everyone their basic needs. You can create companies that compete with the state companies. You can succeed and lead to changes within the system too that way that will emulate success achieved at the private individual level.

You are free to disagree with the system and democratically promote your ideas (exactly like it can be done in science based on merit) and rally for them with others, even exit the system without loss of the chance to rejoin it later. It is an open system that is not afraid about what it offers.


The idea is that unconditional capitalism is not the optimal system. The better system is a system that allows the individual to obtain higher level of personal prosperity based on effort but not at the cost of the stability of the core values of the system that will always place above personal wealth the security, core happiness, opportunity for education,culture and health of its members, the quality of environment and scientific/technological progress. It is a system that requires cooperation to attain its advantages at a basic level and then invites also competition but not in a damaging manner that harms the core values.

These values can constantly be evolving and changing according to the evolving will of the population. It is a democratic system where politicians however are highly vetted and held accountable for their functions. All the details can be gradually developed further but without failing to keep the original promise that every citizen will have access to resources and care that secure safety and stability at a fundamental human decency level.

No comment about masque's mask?

I am not sure if you are complimenting or criticizing it. But I think you are referring to the Forbes 400 part which would mean you approved of it. Just like you approved of my comments about Confederate statues and my observation that you don't abstain from helping those in need even if a significant portion might be scamming you. But because I also believe that those who always opt for reality shows over the science channel or that those who major in physics and forgot the single most important experiment in modern times should be ashamed of themselves, it means I am the male Ann Coulter as far as you are concerned.

You are so incredibly stupid. It's nauseating.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

No comment about what you think "singlehandedly" means?

It is a fundamental problem for the planet to have basically this picture



https://publications.credit-suisse.c...32EC9100FF5C83

0.7% of people have 41% of wealth, those $1mill or over each, 7.7% from 100k to 1mil own 42.3% of wealth and the rest;

22.9% have 10k to 100k and only 13.7% of total wealth, while a massive 68.7% have <10k and represent the total 3% of wealth.


How ridiculous is that?

Most here we are probably in the top 2 levels. Even these however are not entirely liquid and flexible as the 100k+ is mostly kept in possessions and inheritance that offers little immediate value back to the individual. So even that picture is false. How many here have over 100k in liquid assets available within hours? It is a good thing that offers some flexibility. And yet its worthless without proper health insurance. It is just waiting to get wiped out.

There is nothing wrong with being rich and wanting to improve your condition but it is only an opportunity that should exist if all people are given a basic fundamental starting opportunity. If it exists at the peril of others then we are wrong.

The bottom 23% and 69% that have less than 100k per person and especially probably a 50% of less than even 3k is the most amazing crime in history. Those peopel are not idiots or losers in any predetermined objective way if there ever was such thing. They were probably born in that state or it was too easy to drop to it.

These people are subject to all kinds of misery and manipulation at the hands of tyrants, religious extremism, poverty, lack of education and by the way experience the higher population growth rates too!

Those kids born in these conditions represent an amazing opportunity loss for society. The loss for science and technology, cultural growth and innovation is substantial.

This is why a spartan core level must exist for all. Because people will rise and prosper if they are allowed to be secure within the basic needs. If they do not have to fight all their lives for the trivial things we most here take for granted (but even us here are slaves to our jobs often) then their efforts will go to their own growth not the enrichment of those that exploit them. These efforts will lead to prosperity for all if properly directed to cooperation and healthy competition. The greatest part of your work effort must be going back to your growth and progress.

Exactly what would be the cost if all people had a very basic standard of survival existence available to them?

A highly efficient home can be built per person for less than 50k. Each person needs $500 per month for basic food, clothes and books/computers etc expenses. Healthcare is probably doable for another $200 per month because constant monitoring will remove the need for sudden big expenses. Education can be assisted with high technology and kept to below $300 per month at the basic available to all level. Not true? Can 20 teachers help a school of 500 kids assisted also by technology? Probably yes. 5k income per teacher per month the rest for supporting functions to others. Make the homes produce energy and food and you have covered a lot of it on its own existence. The system exists to help those living in it. Your home is your support system and productivity, education center, not just your roof.

So what is the base cost? 50k once and 12k per year to maintain the basic things. In third world countries it probably can be a little cheaper without severe loss of quality. 12000*6 bil people that need the help? 72 tril per year. World GDP 78 tril per year.

If you make a system that provides all this as fraction of your economy then providing a home for others and services gives a home for you too.

This is all an example of numbers as core proof of concept. We will make it doable by making it more efficient with science and technology so that it is not a pipe dream. The cost will drop dramatically if there are no intermediate profit making in all the steps involved. Nobody but our common future potential should profit from the basic survival details offered to all members.

If people have solved their basic survival problems then they can do great things. We will get it all back tenfold.

What can it possibly mean other than "the Forbes 400" "people" could "singlehandedly" do it? The people is plural. What else could it be? If it is each one of them the statement would have been each of the 400 could singlehandedly...

Look how ridiculous the entire thing is really that indeed the top 400 could eliminate it as a sport experiment for fun!

The cost of land in California is easily in many areas less than $7000 per 1000m^2. You can build in that $35000 small home like this;





or a $20000 cabin like that;




The rest of the 1000m^2 say 800 m^2 can be used for planting trees for fruits and other food and adding some chickens there too and a goat why not. Now you have milk, eggs and fruit. While at it add a greenhouse there to add tomatoes, lettuce, beans etc.

Make the roof of the home all solar too and come to an agreement of free electricity and no cost to build the solar panels etc for the right of the investor to get 80% of the energy produced there as income for 20 years selling it to the grid. Sweeten the deal even, use another 200m^2 of that land to add more solar in some creatively aesthetically pleasing design and generate even more income. Make effectively the entire thing wipe out all cost in time.

All this easily houses 3 people per lot. It can be producing $10000 worth of electricity each year. You can even have the solar farm next to theses homes not inside each one other than the roof.

Cost less than 20000 per person with possibility to eliminate cost in time completely.

So yes the top 400 could use only 32 bil or 1.2% of their money to instantly house everyone all 1.6mil and give them access to some food and energy also!

You got to be kidding me how bs the world we live in is actually!

They make >3x times that on their money simply by being invested each year.

All in the name of profit of endless in between people and the laziness of most is why everything great is so hard to happen.

Of course i have no doubt that without responsibility to maintain it all properly it will be a waste of money but this is why its all crap in the world because very few people care and are not lazy or truly grateful when they get a chance for a new start. But you have to try to help them first at least,give them a good example and some structure in their lives. Teach them to work in the factory that builds the homes and the solar by the way and see what happens.

Masq,

Is it be possible in this 'science society' to have the homeless ride stationary bikes that power the electric grid and pay them per mile?

Typical homeless person:




Masque's solution:

If we could design a keyboard that converts Masque's furious typing into electrical energy we could power the entire continent.

Give that guy a new simple home with a garden and a nice looking woman next to him without the kids and ask him if he goes for it vs the alternative. Remove the woman and make the same offer alone. If he says no then f them, they deserve their existence! But i will provide here an even better solution exactly like how scientific society operates by constantly evolving to better;


First every major city develops an area of 100 acres far from any community that rejects it where they place small 100m^2 lots with little plants of flowers donated (keeping the flowers alive with minimal daily effort is their first victory and personal possesion) and a tent like this in each one;



(cost 200$)

and parabolic solar cooking devices for each person and a main cooking area for every 10 lots (a small cabin fitted that way) that has water and external showers, another small cabin with washers to wash clothes for free. 2 bathrooms exist near that location too.

Each person gets a small $100 worth smart phone and a free public transportation card. Local wifi exists to connect the phones for internet access. Each person gets very simply inspected every week for decent conditions of living and general looking personal hygiene conditions and if they pass they get $50 every week they pass and after a year they get a laptop. Food is provided there by local restaurants that collect what is left over every day that is in good safe condition (just unsold food) but not up to top selling standards because it must be consumed within 24h and local groceries that have produce which no longer sells well due to looks but is solid safe. Rice, potatoes, corn, bread and sardines are provided free as additional bonus consistently.

In a main cabin people can come and play games with others too or socialize.

The cost to all this is way small actually (probably less than $1000 per person admitted to set up and $200 per month to maintain) if you add it up plus it is supported by donations because a local TV channel makes a reality show about life in the camp where all that want come to talk and discuss anything. All local stores have as option on every purchase a $1 donation to the camp. The camp has an art center that sells art produced by the residents too who get 80% of the proceeds.


You do this and then in another cheap location you do the homes i suggested above for everyone that wants to join and move out of the camps but then they have a little better living even if far from the big city, their own bathroom and electricity and kitchen and real bedroom and all they need is to find something to do for the community for 6 hours per day and take 2-4h classes on something.


This is what every f#$#ing city of a superpower deserves to do so that you do not have this anymore ;



No shelter crap (of course no crap if nothing else exists) but a permanent transitional experience camp. Nobody sleeps under bridges and in alleys next to garbage anymore.

The cost to all this camp is tiny nothing compared to the opportunity loss for society when all these people fail.

I would pay my $1 every time i go to the store it's a deal and i would hope soon one by one would move out of the tent when ready but every desperate soul would only have to arrive at the camp and get a new tent lot instead of the streets.

The camp minimal spartan existence idea can be provided by the top Forbes 400 if someone lobbies for it at less than 0.1% of their money and the $1 donations with every purchase at local stores (you probably go to stores 10-20 times a month anyway so if every person in 100000 city gave $5 per month you get the picture). If the project succeeds it will be even making money at the camp level.

All these people need a hedged second chance and a gradual recovery procedure that rewards them with every success in steps. Those that have mental psychological issues of more serious nature should be treated differently.

Just imagine a depressed woman with nothing to do all day there suddenly deciding to produce this style art next;

Local art homeless center sells t-shirts with cross stitch and generally sewing counted-thread embroidery style work.

You buy the t-shirts for $5, she does the artwork in them and then sells for $200-$500 per t-shirt.

Damn right this sells if taken to amazing quality for over $1000 and $10000 even eventually in proper circles because it was done by a person that found a way to hope and search for beauty again.








You can always turn the abyss to a bright place again. All you need is to discover again some beauty to combat the misery. A community that cares would provide such exit.

If nobody gives you the chance you create the chance and force them to notice.

Nobody can ignore someone that cares.

In case you haven't noticed my actual intention is to power a galaxy by the time i am dead and gone. Victory 1 for complexity. May the dream outlive a thousand deaths.

If life at the bottom was that rosy nobody in their right mind would work. Might as well have a dozen children while you're at it too right?

There's nothing sustainable about the world you're describing.

Ideally we construct military style barracks in a rural area that has access to basic utilities, separate them by gender, offer basic meals, an intranet entirely dedicated to practical education / job skills and scheduled bus services for job interviews. If you get violent or otherwise break the rules you get demoted to a crappier housing complex with crappier people and less freedom, where you have to reapply to get back in the higher tier housing facility.

No freezing hobos, no one starving, no suffering and a model that operates so efficiently that we can have open borders to any refugee that comes a knock'n.

This guy will never be homeless

Cost. I have no problem with what you said. I was trying to say its even trivially cheap vs seeing them out there suffer the way they do. If you do it organized in larger scale it costs more but becomes more disciplined.

Where is the lack of sustainability? It is very doable to design a home that works for you and all it takes is minimal effort to maintain it. We have the technology today. If nobody gives you a job you create a society that works for each other.

The lot and tents was to imply all the misery can be removed with only a simple basic cost and still remain technically homeless but at least with some dignity now. It is the transition to the place you described. This is what the logic of what i say is all about. It gets progressively better by adding ideas that are more realistic. Politics doesnt work that way. This is why we disagree and never get anywhere. Instead lets try solving things.

There are estimated 200-500k homeless people in the united states. Giving them each $1M would cost $200B-$500B.

The 15 wealthiest Americans are worth a combined $872B.

tl;dr - he's largely right.

I like the wealth redistribution policy, but I dislike the ghetto building policy.

Greetings.
As you can see by my post count, I don't think one would describe me as loquacious. But this interests me, and.. thank you David for bringing this up, and though I believe you lack perspective, at least you spur people to think.
For a quarter of my life I was one of these people, the plague upon civilized society; existing, as some would feel, to make the general populace uncomfortable and depressed.
My cred..take your pick: Homeless, criminal, drug addicted, alcoholic, and certifiably nuts.
That's right, folks. A genuine burden on society. Couldn't do a thing with me. Well, they could have, but they just didn't have a clue..not then, not now.
So i thought I'd share a bit on what I know about solutions.

As some said, there are many reasons why people are homeless. A big mistake people make in trying to fix the homeless problem is not recognizing that one size doesn't fit all. There are really 3 major groups, though some belong to more than one.

FINANCIAL:
There is an old saying in the south. It says: " If we had some ham, we could have ham and eggs. If we had some eggs."
A lot of people become homeless because their life is such that..let's just say they made bad choices that led to fewer choices that led to no choice. By and large they dream of a life where they could afford a place to live, free from worry. But that is all they can do..dream. You are in a situation where you can't get this without that and you have neither. It's too overwhelming. Not many can get through it.
Oh, there is lots of help... Please!
Free public housing? With a free check every month? Damn! Sign me up!
And kiss your dreams goodbye. But at least you can eat at the carryout every night and there is a liquor store right down the street, which you will soon need, if you haven't already.
I'll give them lots of credit. The only place that recognizes what folks need, and gives it to them, is the military. Oh, and prison, but that's another story.

THE MENTALLY ILL:
It's been asked: "How smart is a dog?" Smart enough to do what dogs do. So it goes with the mentally unstable. They just think differently than you do.
My particular affliction, besides being homeless, was best described as paranoid schizophrenia. I was the poster child representing every homeless person you hate to have the misfortune to run across. And from what I've gathered here, the impression you form about these people, and the influence of this impression on "solutions", is far from accurate.
I had my share of professional help, some not of my choosing; but the one thing they all had in common is that they all assumed I was incapable of thinking clearly. Not so. I was very capable. I knew exactly what was wrong with me and I devoted 100% of my thoughts toward how to escape from Looneytoonville and return to normal. And fighting off the urge to succumb to the crazy thoughts brought on by the illness. That's what I was thinking.This is what doctors could never get. Preoccupied as I was, what people saw was me just letting **** happen. It wasn't important, I had much greater concerns.
More free mental health treatment, you say? No thanks. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. Not so fond memories of shuffling down the halls in my slippers, loaded up on thorazine, listening to full of themselves "therapists" who never considered that I could be a valuable contributor to my own recovery..except that..uh..I couldn't communicate...that's what's wrong with me... duh.
Homeless crazy people? They're not as crazy as you'd think. They just have problems they are trying to cope with. They are homeless mostly because they have much more pressing issues to worry about. Let's face it, it's a rare person that can go through mental illness and be functional at the same time. If one wants to find a "solution" to help them, a good place to start is to realize it's not something you do for them, it is something you do along with them. As they say, it's a long process, not an event.
Oh, why do homeless (especially crazy ones) seek the company of others like them? Because there is a sense of understanding among them that all the outsiders, even the most well-intentioned, will never share.

FREE SPIRITS:
These people are homeless because they choose to be. They almost always have money, and they're happy. They think the rest of us are the weird ones. They're probably right.

Why all this? Because all the government programs, all the so called professional help, all the money thrown around, all the smart policy makers, do very little to help anyone. What did work for me and will work for just about anyone? Later for that.
I do like the post about the homeless camp, though. All things considered, some of my best times were spent there.

Originally Posted by Man of Means View Post
Math? Jeff Bezos is worth about $140,000,000,000.
There are about 500,000 homeless in the US and making each of them a millionaire would cost $500,000,000,000. Doesn't seem to compute unless perhaps you mean "singlehandedly" to refer to many people.


No, only 1.25 bil per person.

Of course you also have my numbers since then but live by the troll die by the troll right?

It's 60% of their wealth by your own math, smart guy. That's not some trivial amount.


Tell you what, you blow a trivial 25% of your net worth on this Little House on the Prarie project out yours and then get back to us.

Just dont talk about other guys' math being wrong and then make trivial mistakes you do not edit immediately later, thats all. Everyone can make stupid number mistakes and i would not hold that against anyone , it means little in terms of the content, but if you make such claims at least care for your numbers and revisit your posts like it matters to you.

60% of the position as i calculated is not affecting a very rich person's lifestyle because they were there 5 years ago damn it lol easily when many of them are mostly from the stock market there. I already gave you an idea about how little effect on quality of life losing 60% if you are a billionaire means. 100k -200k -500k per day is not enough to be super luxurious?


Also do not threaten me with losing 25% as if its a big deal. I dont give a damn if i lost 25% or 50% (that is still hundreds of thousands of $) for a good cause if we determined that was what it takes to eliminate poverty in US and improve education for all kids the way i see proper education. I would continue to make tons of money every day in ways that improve the world to not care even if i lost 90% of my liquid net worth, which would piss me off in terms of plans but that wouldn't affect my living conditions at all.

If the top 400 gave even 5% of their money to what i described i have no problem giving 10% to it and if they gave 20% to eliminate poverty completely so that the lower middle class would go back to reasonable income or housing i would give 30% although you should know that the proper way to do this for all incomes uses a graduated % so that it really has the less unimportant impact on lifestyle for all involved. Yet it ends up that the top rich pay even less tax than the middle class in relative terms to the impact it has to their lifestyle.

I am ok with giving even 75% of my cash and liquid investments if scientific society were to start immediately.

That means we now live in a world that everyone employed never pays rent again to anyone and we all work for the state and ourselves if we work above the minimum or have private enterprise not some others that sit and watch or play exploitation friction games.

I am ok with giving even 75% of my cash and liquid investments if scientific society were to start immediately.

Well, that makes you a majority of one, I'd guess.

"That means we now live in a world that everyone employed never pays rent again to anyone and we all work for the state and ourselves if we work above the minimum or have private enterprise not some others that sit and watch or play exploitation friction games. "

Oof. I'm assuming English isn't your primary language, and that's all good - If I had to get along in Spanish (my second best) I'd be screwed. But I honestly have no idea WTF you're on about here.

MM MD