Human Reservoirs

I'll try to keep this quick, as I just want to make some notes, but don't really have the energy to pen an entire article. Though, saying that, it takes real effort to be concise and lazy writing tends to wander.

(Oh no, I've already wrote a paragraph and still haven't said anything.)

Focus.

Unemployment - Three Points

The First.

We need to start accepting it as a reality - a natural part of the economy - not a cancer upon it. In the modern world there will always be a wedge of unemployed people. It may be bigger, it may be smaller, but it'll always be there. Its existence isn't the consequence of some moral failing on the part of government or society at large. It's a feature of modern economies, not a bug. And it doesn't care about your moral or political arguments, be they from the left or the right. Yes, these things will affect the size of the wedge, but they will not remove it. The wedge doesn't exist because people on the other side of the aisle have done "bad things" to bring it about.

(It's similar with our empty highstreets. The simple reality is we don't need as much shop space anymore. It's a consequence of technological change. It's not someone's fault. Town centres aren't half empty because someone did something immoral. It's just the way it is now. Accept it. Knock one third of the high street down and plant some pretty flowers or something.)

So, anyway, we need to view that unemployed wedge as a resource; a blessing. A reservoir of untapped potential. Something there if we need it. Not, "Oh my God, what a curse it is to have all these feckless people milling about."

Point Two.

If we're going to lower immigration we need to pre-emptively make it clear to employers that there'll be a dividend to tapping this natural reservoir. For the last 30 years companies have grown dependent on immigration, so haven't needed to train, entice and retain native reservoir workers.

"Look, there are people there, you just have to go and get them."

Yes, it's a bit harder, but it'll be harder still when the tap of immigration is turned off and your company hasn't adapted to this.

Point Three.

This is slightly more abstract, but it needs to be added to the conversation.

Imagine two situations.

Sit. 1

There are two 23 year olds. One works 40 hours a week, the other is unemployed. The employed one has self-confidence and self-worth. However, as they have little spare time they don't take part in other aspects of society: local politics, charity and community work, etc. Whereas the unemployed person has the time, but they're so demoralised and lacking a sense of purpose they don't use it. "How can I help others when I can't even help myself?" they think.

I don't really need to illustrate the second situation. Obviously, what I'm getting at here is that if they both worked 20 hours instead, you'd have two much more productive people. As each would have the self-confidence and spare time to contribute to wider society in other ways, on top of the combined 40 hours of work.

Yes, this is idealistic. People generally work 40 hours a week because they need the money. Plus, you'd have to train both people to do the job, etc, etc, etc. There are countless practical holes. Still, if people are genuinely concerned about living in a society where half the people work to support the other half, we need to start envisioning something different. Even if we just make baby steps towards such ideas.

We need to start looking for the upside. The opportunities that are presenting themselves. A glass half full view of what's on the horizon. We can't go into this viewing vast swathes of humans as valueless. There really is the potential for a better world somewhere in this. A better quality of life. We just need to orientate ourselves better.

I really am meandering now. These definitely aren't bullet points. I'm lost in grey clouds, but at least reaching for the light.

[This is what chatgpt came up with when I asked it to turn the post into an image. It looks fittingly communist lol.]

Goldilocks and the Three Metals

Just over a week ago I did a post titled: Why Gold Standards Don't Work (refresher)

It was the capstone for a little PDF I've put together. Basically a collation of all the articles I've posted on the topic.

The pdf can be downloaded for free here: Goldilocks and the Three Metals

I'll list the links for the articles as well (including a couple of extra ones that weren't included in the pdf). Effectively making this the home page for the topic.

Gold Standards Don't Work

Gold Standards Don't Work: Part II - Goldilocks Knows

Anything Can Be Currency In A World Without Tax

I'm Off The Gold Standard

Why Gold (and Silver) Standards Don't Work: Part III - Human Meddling

Why Gold Standards Don't Work (refresher)

Metals, Markets and Digital Jewellery

Bitcoin: Currencies Are Backed By Cultures

A Money Tree on a Desert Island

The two unincluded ones:

Note To Self: Buy Shares In Stonehenge

Invest in Our Culture

The Retreat into Ethnicity

This was an easy trend to spot.

I'll put it simply (and a little crudely): Ethnicity is for loser cultures.

It's harsh putting it in these terms, but it's the harsh truth. An "ethnicity", particularly in political terms, is a group of people reduced to the status of pandas. A protected group. A relic that needs preserving as one would preserve an old book or decaying building.

A weak and dying relic culture.

Healthy cultures grow, expand, change, innovate, absorb, explore. Dare I say it, conquer. They're an active force in the world. Not relics. Not wholly defined by the past. Not living museums.

The classic example of the living museum is perhaps the Native American reservation. Like a wildlife reserve. That tourists from the dominant culture visit. To see the natives in their tipis and traditional dress. As they would a grey elephant or orangutan. Again, it's harsh, but it's true. You've lost, but instead of adapting and changing to positively embrace the new world that's eclipsed the old, you retreat into ethnicity. Pleading for a space - a little reserve - carved out with lenient benevolence by the dominant culture. Where you can endlessly repeat the traditions of your ancestors. Singing and preserving their songs, but never writing new ones of your own.

A flesh and blood museum display. Surviving on the state charity the "protected" status affords. Along with money from tourism. As you drink alcohol and watch TV in between performances.

Of course, I'm exaggerating slightly. It's not quite that black and white, in reality it's more of a sliding scale. Yet still, it is something of a binary choice.

Scotland and Wales

Closer to home we have a prefect example of it. For decades and centuries Scottish and Welsh people have had a choice. Embrace their Britishness - an ever-changing, living/breathing, world power culture. Or eschew it and retreat into ethnicity.

Naturally the retreat into ethnicity comes with all the hallmarks of the museum. Victimhood, protected status, a picture postcard preservation and performance of the past. The traditional dress and song - especially clear in the Scottish example with the kilt and bagpipes. And, of course, the endless focus on historic grievances.

[Again, to be fair, it isn't this cut and dried, and you don't have to completely abandon every notion of Scottish or Welshness. You don't have to completely abandon the kilt. But if the kilt comes with an antipathy to Britishness, or a hatred of "The English", then that is coming down hard on one side of the binary.]

Anyway, Back to the Easy-To-See Trend

As immigration has rocketed and the once dominant English/British* culture is feeling threatened we're seeing a similar retreat. A retreat into English ethnicity.

(*For confident British people these words are basically interchangeable outside of football and Englishman, Scotsman, Irishman jokes.]

It's painful to see and it comes with the exact same self-pity and victimhood. The exact same demand to be treated as a protected subgroup. The reduction of the once-living culture to a postcard of the past. You'll even hear these people complain that white populations in Europe aren't given the same special "indigenous" status that the Sami people of Finland have been afforded. A people that were given that recognition as they're basically the Native Americans of Europe. So my earlier comparison wasn't even especially farfetched. Ethnats really do see themselves through this victim lens. They desperately desire the United Nations to come and give them a little badge saying they need their own special space. Again, it's painful to witness. That a few decades of Blair-level immigration has reduced British people - British people - to this. Crybabying.

Needless to say, this is why this retreat into English ethnicism needs to be stopped. We can't have these people working with their self-pitying counterparts in Wales and Scotland to undermine Britain.

[In another moment of charming synchronicity my mam just gave me a Rabbie Burns £2 coin that she got in her change. As I've noted before, my nanna on my mam's side was from Scotland. She always used to carry a little book of Rabbie Burns poetry in her handbag. So don't think these things aren't close to my heart.

(Yes, I have the handwriting

of a twelve year old)

Now isn't the time for sentimentality though. I do not want to see my island divided into three sad sack nations.]

Communism everywhere, except where it's needed

I feel I need to comment on the Andy Burnham proposal to reallow drinking alcohol in football stands. As it's just crazy to me. Not so much the idea itself - there are arguments for and against that, which I'll get to later. But the very fact that he's proposing it is insane.

This was my response on Twitter.

Here we have a Labour government that loves regulating things. (Part of a uniparty in general that loves regulation - just look at the recent Tory plans to dictate what people on benefits can and can't buy.) Yet, on this one issue they're taking the libertarian route.

It's so weird. I don't want to be overly negative, I'm sure Andy Burnham means well, but it's one of those decisions that makes you think, "These people just don't have a clue."

Normally I tend to come down on the libertarian side of things. My instincts are always to give adults the freedom to make their own decisions, as free from government as possible. (Just look at some of my recent blog posts on here.) However, on this issue, as much as I think it's a bit petty that grown men can't be trusted to have a beer whilst watching a football match, I know changing it will make things worse.

This is one issue where restrictions have clearly made things better. Back in the 1980s we used to have appalling hooliganism at English football games. We were notorious the world over for it. Today that isn't the case. Today it's a family-friendly environment. Perhaps slightly more raucous than a trip to the cinema. Safe for children, pensioners and women. (Sorry if that sounds a bit sexist, but women generally don't want to spend 90 minutes sat next to some random lout sloshing a pint about. Especially if they've paid £30 or £40 for a ticket, or they've brought their young children along.)

And this is the thing with the way things are now. People can still have a drink at the game. It's not like they can't. They can do it in the concourse. They can do down for a pint at halftime or before the game. Libertarian leanings aside it's perfectly fine and no one's really complaining about it. Sure, some fans would like to drink in the stands, but many others would not like the change.

A few months ago I was at a match and there was a fairly drunk guy sat a row behind us. He'd somehow managed to sneak his drink past the stewards and was drinking in the stands. Not only was he annoying, as he was loudly repeating himself over and over - as drunks do - but he also managed to spill his pint and soak the shoes of the people in front.

And it's not just the behaviour and wet feet that's annoying, but the fact that other people get annoyed in turn. So you're having to say, "Leave it, he's just a guy whose had a few too many drinks," to stop a confrontation from escalating. This is how fights start.

Again, it seems crazy. They regulate everything, but they want to repeal this. The people that don't want gambling ads on football shirts in case it has a bad impact on society are suddenly libertarian here.

I saw a quote from Andy Burnham where he said it wasn't "fair" that people at Rugby matches could drink when football fans couldn't. He also used the word "discrimination" lol. It's another reality meets idealism issue. Ideally football fans shouldn't be stopped from having a pint by the state, but realistically football isn't rugby. The rest of Europe don't dread and fear English rugby fans. The police don't have to line the streets on high alert when Yorkshire play Durham at cricket.

Even I can't make the argument that freedom is better here.

I recently read the Boris book..

It's a thick book, but it was a breeze to read, and it was very funny at times. Especially some of the side swipes at Macron.

As ever these books are primarily fascinating as you get a glimpse into the corridors of power. I do love all that stuff. That aside, I'd rather comment on the impression the book made on me. Firstly, it made me really miss the queen. Occasionally I have moments where I miss the queen anyway. Not that I knew her. Just little things where I'm reminded, "Oh yeh, the queen's dead." (To quote Morrissey.) She was there all that time and now she isn't. I never met her, I didn't know her personally, but she was the queen. It's a weird thing. Maybe you just have to be British. Perhaps it's just me. Anyway, reading this book it was that feeling, but times ten. The little anecdotes about her. I don't really have anything insightful to say about it, but it's the overriding impression I'm left with.

I mentioned synchronicities a few posts ago. Towards the end of the book there's an anecdote about magpies. Boris saw a single magpie when out with the queen and lamented the prospect of bad luck. The queen said, it's okay, "you just say, good morning Mr Magpie, today is Monday the 12th of March - or whatever the date is. That sorts it."

I'd literally just seen a single magpie on my way to work before I read that passage. The above picture was taken in the quiet room at work before my shift. Obviously, it's a silly superstition, but these little things fill the world with meaning.

The other overriding impression was just how intelligent Boris is. It's quite a rounded intelligence too. Good for a leader. He has emotional intelligence, but also an eye for the curious. There's a very wide range of interests and references. From James Frazer to cycle lanes and London buses.

From the minute the pandemic began I felt like he was on our side, and the book pretty much confirms this. It's crazy the Tories (with help from Labour and the media) ousted him. There's this sense of brats kicking over other kids' sandcastles. But I guess that's life. He was there long enough to get us through the pandemic and Get Brexit Done. So he was in the right place at the right time.

Highly recommended.

Why Gold Standards Don't Work (refresher)

A standard is a measure, and originally silver was used as a standard because it sat in the middle between copper and gold in terms of value. So it was the natural thing to use as a general measure.

(Imagine measuring lengths with a ruler stick. A very long ruler would be good for measuring very long things, but it would be impractical for measuring smaller lengths. Likewise, a tiny ruler would be useful for measuring small lengths, but equally impractical for measuring long ones. Therefore, a medium length ruler is the most handy to have around, as it can be used to measure both long and short. Silver, in effect, is the medium ruler.)

We've discussed this before: Silver Porridge: Not Too Hot, Not Too Cold

(Goldilocks and the Three Metals)

Measured, Not "Backed"

Originally this "silver standard" just meant that silver was used as the general measuring stick, it didn't mean that currencies were "backed" by silver. As in the sense that we think of a gold or silver standard today.

Let me explain..

Envision some ancient world where there's no official currency. People use metal coins to trade, and they can use all different metals - copper, silver, gold - whatever is convenient. In fact, it doesn't even have to be metal. Anything can be used as long as both trading parties are happy.

See here: Anything Can Be Currency In A World Without Tax

Currency takes many forms. Copper coins, silver coins, gold coins (I'm saying coins, any shape will do - it's the weight and purity that's important). Even blocks of salt. In this world silver is used as a general measure, especially by banks or traders.

If they're pricing the value of gold, copper, iron, grain, wood and everything else, it's convenient to use one commodity to do this. And again, as silver is of middling value, it's the natural choice. Gold is too expensive. How many loaves of bread would equal one ounce of gold? Likewise, copper is too cheap. You wouldn't want to buy something expensive, like a horse and chariot, with countless copper coins.

So it's not that silver is the only currency. It's just the go-to measuring stick for pricing everything else.

A peasant will still use copper to buy his bread. A pharaoh will still use gold to buy his chariot.

But then comes the official currency..

Uh oh, the pharaoh's put his chariots to good use to enforce order.

The state mints an official currency, that all trade must be conducted in and that tax must be paid in. This official currency comes in the form of silver and copper coins, pressed with the pharaoh's face.

This is where the silver standard stops simply being a measure and begins to become a standard in the "backed" sense. It happens slowly though. (It's also here that we begin to see the earliest, teeny-weeniest beginnings of state fiat.)

At first things are fine, and the copper and silver coins reflect their real world market value.

To keep it simple, let's say when the coins are minted one ounce of silver equals one hundred ounces of copper. And the markings on these newly minted coins state that a copper coin is 1/100th the value of a silver one.

Yet, in the real world - out in the open market - prices change. Copper goes up and down in relation to silver. Silver goes up and down in relation to a loaf of bread. Everything goes up and down in relation to everything else. In reality prices are never fixed.

So what happens if, a year after the coins have been minted, an ounce of silver is worth one hundred and twenty ounces of copper, not just one hundred?

Either the state has to change the coinage to reflect this new reality, or we have a situation where the official currency is out of sync with real world prices. As silver is the standard - the all-important measure - the silver coins retain their parity with the real world silver value. However, as the copper coins are valued in reference to the silver ones they get detached from their real world price.

In reality the copper in the coin is only worth 1/120th of an ounce of silver. Yet officialdom states it's still worth 1/100th of an ounce. So, in a sense, the copper coins simply become tokens (or IOUs) promising 1/100th an ounce of silver, regardless of their actual metallic value.

Of course, this example is a vast oversimplification. The earliest minted coins wouldn't have been marked to state a relative value. Such complexities only came about over time. Nevertheless, the example shows how you can move from a world where anything can be currency. To a world of minted coins of varying metal. To a world where the currency is just one metal, or backed by one metal.

Or Is It Backed ??

An interesting addendum to this is that "backed" currencies often have a tendency to be less backed.

This is an odd one, but bear with me.

Let's return to the world where there was no official currency. Let's say in this economy there are 10,000 copper coins and 100 silver coins in circulation.

Now using silver as a measure you could value this coinage in silver.

If one silver coin is worth one hundred copper coins then 10,000 copper coins = 100 silver coins in value.

So in circulation we have:

10,000 copper coins (value: 100 silver coins) + 100 actual silver coins = value: 200 silver coins.

So the value of all the coins is 200 when measured in silver. And even though there are only 100 silver coins in reality, the value is backed by the silver and the copper.

Hence, in this old world the currency isn't backed solely by silver.

However..

Let's fast forward to our world with an official currency, where the copper coins have been debased. Or perhaps even completely replaced with steel or plastic token coins.

Imagine the same situation. There are 10,000 "copper" coins and 100 silver coins in circulation.

Again, we have:

10,000 copper coins (value: 100 silver coins) + 100 actual silver coins = value: 200 silver coins.

However, though the total value is said to be 200 silver coins, it's only backed by 100 silver coins. And nothing else. As the 10,000 "copper" coins - that each promise the holder 1/100th of a silver coin - are physically worthless, as they're just plastic.

So, for the plastic token coins to be truly backed, all the silver coins would have to be in a bank and out of circulation.

This is why currencies tend to become more and more debased once states start going down this road. Eventually abandoning the silver (or gold) standard entirely when the promises can't be met. In a way it's not the state's fault. The whole process is the accidental consequence of states trying to set prices and impose order on a complex world. And their attempts to provide liquidity in an economy where everything is fixed to one commodity.

It's all well and good saying we should have a gold (or silver) standard, but it's not much use when liquidity dries up and everyone's forced to trade and pay tax in a commodity they can't get hold of. 

Factory Animals 2.0

I don't believe consciousness can be created from digital models and semiconductors. The notion seems ridiculous to me. Where I do think consciousness can be exploited though is through the mimicry or utilisation of biology.

Does a housefly have consciousness? Given it's a living creature with eyes and legs and a brain it's reasonable to surmise that it's at least somewhere on the spectrum towards it. If the biology of a fly was copied or co-opted to serve some information processing function, then, in a sense, you would have a conscious computer.

Likewise, it's not hard to imagine, given the rapid advancement of genetic engineering and computer science, that such a co-opted biology could be fused with digital hardware and the software it runs.

The thought is somewhat horrific. Especially when you apply it further up the animal totem pole. The brain and nervous system of mice, or pigs, or chimpanzees.

What happens when you start making biological machines? Living robotics? Then at what point does consciousness begin? At what point does something begin to feel? Or have an awareness of such feelings?

It wouldn't be the creation of consciousness out of numbers. It would be the exploitation of life (and life's capacity to generate consciousness) by enslaving it to number and mechanical function.

Here I think legislation is needed. Not to protect the wider world and humanity from its consequences - though I'm sure dangers could arise from such dabbling with biology - but to stop the suffering of the perverse Frankenstein's monsters that may be brought into being.

We've seen how barbaric factory farming can be. How industrialisation led to the conveyer belt confinement and slaughter of numberless animals. One wonders where a low empathy humanity would go with ever greater means to commodify living creatures.

We could see things beyond nightmares. Beyond anything seen in the Terminator movies.

[In a moment of synchronicity I watched the following livestream today (I say watched, I'm actually currently halfway through it). I saw the notification for it last night, just as I was finishing writing the above. I thought, "I'll watch that tomorrow." Not thinking it was especially related.

Anyway, I started and straight away it's about the brains of flies being used as AI. Apparently Google mapped the brain of the male fruit fly and recently released it as a downloadable dataset. Which people are now using to conduct various experiments.

The Singularity Happened (& You Missed It!) w/ Void - Jord (YouTube)

For the record, I don't think a model of a brain and nervous system is the same as the real thing. Nor do I think consciousness can arise from such digital models. As per the last article I'm deeply sceptical of such claims. However, for all my opinion, I do actually listen to alternative viewpoints. Especially if they're novel or interesting. So the linked-to discussion gets my seal of approval - though I would urge people remain guarded against getting too sucked in to the unreality hype.]