Friday, May 16, 2014

Belarus and European Instability .

Belarus and European Instability .


Andre Willers
16 May 2014
Synopsis :
Another patchwork state becoming unglued due to insufficient reserves . The next domino after Ukraine . Then others will follow , as the EU unravels . Endemic warfare ensues .
  
Discussion :
1.GINI :
Belarus : 26.48 (2011)
Ukraine : 25.62 (2010)
 
See Appendix AA for a discussion of what this means .
Basically , the State has insufficient reserves to counteract centripetal forces , especially if under hostile attack .
 
2.Belarus has a diverse ethnic and language make-up .
And it borders on Russia , Ukraine and Lithuania .
It has a state military (mostly conscripts) and a private sector with insufficient reserves to motivate and maintain itself leads to instability , regardless of the ideology .
It didn’t work for the USSR , and the same result will follow for Belarus after the Ukraine has fallen apart .
 
3. Other nearby countries at risk because of insufficient reserves (low GINI)
3.1 Slovakia (26) , Czech (25) , Serbia (27) , Bulgaria (28)
 
3.2 At risk countries with reserves that are so spread out they cannot be mobilized quickly . Vulnerable to a political blitzkrieg .
Germany (28) , Denmark (24) , Finland (26) , Sweden (25) , Norway (25) .
 
3.3 Countries at risk because of regional GINI differences .
(a)Belgium : see Appendix BB . One half of the country is paying for the other half .
If there is even a slight hiccup in EU subsidies to Brussels , Belgium will fly apart .
 
(b) Venice : The same story . The Venetians have already voted to secede from Italy . See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetian_independence_referendum,_2014 .
Italy might fall apart completely into it’s natural form of city-states .
 
(c) The rest all have risks . See
UK is already happening . Spain seems to be at high risk .
 
(d) Germany collapsing into a number of small states (like before Bismarck)  is unfortunately quite likely if the EU falls apart .
Note the “Ossie” – “Wessie” divide . The GINI’s of the two regions are quite different .
The German state looks rather fragile .
The old GDR GINI ~ 22 compared to Germany’s ~ 28 .
This is a huge difference . The whole amalgamation process seems to have stalled in the mid 1990’s , leaving a lot of bitterness .
See the Conclusion  in the URL .
 
4.Endemic Warfare .
The result would be a large number of small , very homogenous states that are extremely xenophobic .
Something like Medieval Europe .
 
Note that “Warfare as the Game of Kings” was an integral part of the system .
It purged the system of those pesky adventurous spirits .
Until Napoleon spoiled it all . (Why he is known as The Great Disturber)
 

One can then expect a resurgence of organized religion , especially Roman Catholicism with its proven track record of mind control (confessional , etc)
The Internet would be under strict secular and religious control , except for pockets of skunk-works where anything goes as long as it is to the advantage of the State .
Religious fascism with ghettoes of freedom to produce the technology to perpetuate the State .
This has happened before .
Think Universities in Medieval Europe.
The system under stress will be very inclined to follow the path of least resistance as in the previous instance .
 
5.The Singularity .
Technological singularities would be more likely in such an environment .
 
The argument is similar to the West’s development of technology from small , quarrelling states circa 1400 – 1800 .I 
Diversity is more important than optimization .
 
6. The fragmentation of states is then a necessary (and logical ) tautological step to Singularity .
 
I can see some interesting times for all .
 
Why bother with incarnating on earth just to be bored ?
 
7. For starters , calculate the GINI of Heaven .
 
8.The economics of souls will stretch your mind .
 
Christian free forgiveness of sins is the Quantitive Easing  for souls .
 
Isn’t Soul Economics fun ?
 
Andre
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Appendix AA

Sunday, March 16, 2014
GINI and the rubble of Empire
GINI and the Rubble of Empire . 


Andre Willers .
16 Mar 2014
“Grasping all , they lose all” AW
Synopsis :
What we see as the glory of Rome is really just the rubble of the rich, built on the backs of poor farmers and laborers .And things are worse today .

Discussion:
1.GINI measures unequal income . It measures desperation in hunger and medicine .
The Gini coefficient is a number between 0 and 1, where 0 corresponds with perfect equality (where everyone has the same income) and 1 corresponds with perfect inequality (where one person has all the income—and everyone else has zero income).
Easy to remember : No 1 has it all .
The rest have nothing except what is doled out in the Camps .
2.Not even the Roman Empire had as high Gini ratio’s as present so-called democracies .
Xx
A short summary of the most important countries .
Where would you like to live if you were (a) rich . Or (b) at the bottom .
This differential drives Revolution and Migration .

RSA Gini= 0.63
China Gini = 47.4
USA   Gini = 0.45
Russia Gini = 0.417
UK Gini = 40
Japan Gini= 0.376
India Gini = 0.368
Germany Gini= 0.27

xxx
Roman Empire (150 AD) :  Gini = 0.42

This basically means that a Roman slave in 150 AD had a fairer deal than a salary slave in most of the present Western world .
Note the exception of Germany .

See Appendix A for Roman Empire Gini .
  
3. Reserve considerations .
See Appendix C on how to calculate optimal reserves ab-initio .
Reserve arguments can be used .
The society should build up reserves . This is usually held in individual hands (your savings) , but it shows up in Gini statistics as lowering the ratio .
The Optimal GINI would then be in the band 0.28 – 0.33 – 0.38  , with the sweet spot at 0.33 .

4.Some corollaries :
If GINI smaller than 0.28 , instability ensues . Insufficient reserves. Usually collapse . Cities deserted as the good citizens just walk away .
Or the collapse of the USSR . See http://www.roiw.org/1993/23.pdf
The 1989 Gini of USSR = 0.275 .  It shouldn’t have led to collapse , but they were in an arms-race with USA . Insufficient reserves .
The system went into shock and collapsed .

If GINI  bigger than 0.38 , instability ensues . Too much reserves in too few hands . Usually revolution .
See Arab Spring , Syria , Occupy Wall st , etc etc .Or any peasant rebellion in history , a-la-France  or Russia .

5.Where are we now 2014 ?
Every country with a Gini bigger than 0.38 and social media access is a revolution waiting to happen .
Countries with Gini smaller than 0.28 have to be propped up .
  
According to this argument , Germany appears strong now , but might need aid in the near future . Can this be correct ? Remember verreine . Huge reserves are locked up in the verreine . But how is classified in the Gini calculation ?

6.What does this mean ?
Big , top-heavy states will continue to break apart .
Ukraine now , UK (Scotland) later this year .
 A big Empire like the USA is showing distinct signs of strain . The tail is attempting to wag the dog . Be interesting to see who is the last man standing in the ruins .
“Better dead than red” used to be the motto . But can get enthusiastic about Donkeys and Elephants ?

7 RSA ?
The same story . Another artificial mini-empire tacked together by the British . The extremely high Gini will force a break-up of the provinces . The usual civil war will ensue as the vultures pick the carcass apart .
See Appendix D on Neo-Vikings .
I would have hoped that they go off-planet , but they are too stupid and poor to do that .

8. What an exciting future .
Greed and stupidity finally does for the human race .

“Grasping all , they lose all”
Regards
Andre

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Appendix A
http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/2d53lE/:Ix!ztvvU:fhbrmqFE/persquaremile.com/2011/12/16/income-inequality-in-the-roman-empire/
Over the last 30 years, wealth in the United States has been steadily concentrating in the upper economic echelons. Whereas the top 1 percent used to control a little over 30 percent of the wealth, they now control 40 percent. It’s a trend that was for decades brushed under the rug but is now on the tops of minds and at the tips of tongues.
Since too much inequality can foment revolt and instability, the CIA regularly updates statistics on income distribution for countries around the world, including the U.S. Between 1997 and 2007, inequality in the U.S. grew by almost 10 percent, making it more unequal than Russia, infamous for its powerful oligarchs. The U.S. is not faring well historically, either. Even the Roman Empire, a society built on conquest and slave labor, had a more equitable income distribution.
To determine the size of the Roman economy and the distribution of income, historians Walter Schiedel and Steven Friesen pored over papyri ledgers, previous scholarly estimates, imperial edicts, and Biblical passages. Their target was the state of the economy when the empire was at its population zenith, around 150 C.E. Schiedel and Friesen estimate that the top 1 percent of Roman society controlled 16 percent of the wealth, less than half of what America’s top 1 percent control.
To arrive at that number, they broke down Roman society into its established and implicit classes. Deriving income for the majority of plebeians required estimating the amount of wheat they might have consumed. From there, they could backtrack to daily wages based on wheat costs (most plebs did not have much, if any, discretionary income). Next they estimated the incomes of the “respectable” and “middling” sectors by multiplying the wages of the bottom class by a coefficient derived from a review of the literature. The few “respectable” and “middling” Romans enjoyed comfortable, but not lavish, lifestyles.
Above the plebs were perched the elite Roman orders. These well-defined classes played important roles in politics and commerce. The ruling patricians sat at the top, though their numbers were likely too few to consider. Below them were the senators. Their numbers are well known—there were 600 in 150 C.E.—but estimating their wealth was difficult. Like most politicians today, they were wealthy—to become a senator, a man had to be worth at least 1 million sesterces (a Roman coin, abbreviated HS). In reality, most possessed even greater fortunes. Schiedel and Friesen estimate the average senator was worth over HS5 million and drew annual incomes of more than HS300,000.
After the senators came the equestrians. Originally the Roman army’s cavalry, they evolved into a commercial class after senators were banned from business deals in 218 B.C. An equestrian’s holdings were worth on average about HS600,000, and he earned an average of HS40,000 per year. The decuriones, or city councilmen, occupied the step below the equestrians. They earning about HS9,000 per year and held assets of around HS150,000. Other miscellaneous wealthy people drew incomes and held fortunes of about the same amount as the decuriones.
In total, Schiedel and Friesen figure the elite orders and other wealthy made up about 1.5 percent of the 70 million inhabitants the empire claimed at its peak. Together, they controlled around 20 percent of the wealth.
These numbers paint a picture of two Romes, one of respectable, if not fabulous, wealth and the other of meager wages, enough to survive day-to-day but not enough to prosper. The wealthy were also largely concentrated in the cities. It’s not unlike the U.S. today. Indeed, based on a widely used measure of income inequality, the Gini coefficient, imperial Rome was slightly more equal than the U.S.
The CIA, World Bank, and other institutions track the Gini coefficients of modern nations. It’s a unitless number, which can make it somewhat tricky to understand. I find visualizing it helps. Take a look at the following graph.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-XDHyyI4j6ts/UyYlqYyO1lI/AAAAAAAAAUc/IAzuJlfYylQ/s1600/gini.png

To calculate the Gini coefficient, you divide the orange area (A) by the sum of the orange and blue areas (A + B). The more unequal the income distribution, the larger the orange area. The Gini coefficient scales from 0 to 1, where 0 means each portion of the population gathers an equal amount of income and 1 means a single person collects everything. Schiedel and Friesen calculated a Gini coefficient of 0.42–0.44 for Rome. By comparison, the Gini coefficient in the U.S. in 2007 was 0.45.
Schiedel and Friesen aren’t passing judgement on the ancient Romans, nor are they on modern day Americans. Theirs is an academic study, one used to further scholarship on one of the great ancient civilizations. But buried at the end, they make a point that’s difficult to parse, yet provocative. They point out that the majority of extant Roman ruins resulted from the economic activities of the top 10 percent. “Yet the disproportionate visibility of this ‘fortunate decile’ must not let us forget the vast but—to us—inconspicuous majority that failed even to begin to share in the moderate amount of economic growth associated with large-scale formation in the ancient Mediterranean and its hinterlands.”
In other words, what we see as the glory of Rome is really just the rubble of the rich, built on the backs of poor farmers and laborers, traces of whom have all but vanished. It’s as though Rome’s 99 percent never existed. Which makes me wonder, what will future civilizations think of us?
Source:
Scheidel, W., & Friesen, S. (2010). The Size of the Economy and the Distribution of Income in the Roman Empire Journal of Roman Studies, 99 DOI:10.3815/007543509789745223
  Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Appendix B
GINI in descending order per country where available .
Rank
Country
Value
Date of Info
1
.
63.2
1995
2
.
63.1
2005
3
.
63.0
1993
4
.
62.9
1989
5
.
61.3
1993
6
.
59.7
2010
7
.
59.2
2001
8
.
58.5
2011
9
.
57.7
2007
10
.
55.1
2007
11
.
53.7
2011
12
.
53.6
2009
13
.
53.2
2009
14
.
53.0
2010
15
.
52.1
2009
16
.
51.9
2010 est.
17
.
51.9
2012
18
.
50.9
1996
19
.
50.8
2004
20
.
50.4
2001
21
.
50.3
2009
22
.
50.2
1998
23
.
50.1
2006
24
.
49.0
2010
25
.
48.3
2008
26
.
47.8
2012
27
.
47.7
Dec 2012
28
.
47.5
2001
29
.
47.4
2012
30
.
47.2
2010 est.
31
.
46.9
2007
32
.
46.8
2000
33
.
46.2
2009
34
.
46.0
2010
35
.
46.0
2011
36
.
45.8
2009
37
.
45.6
2008
38
.
45.5
2004
39
.
45.3
2010
40
.
45.3
2007
41
.
45.0
2007
42
.
44.8
2009
43
.
44.6
2001
44
.
44.6
2007
45
.
44.5
2006
46
.
44.3
2009
47
.
43.7
2003
48
.
43.2
2009
49
.
42.5
2008 est.
50
.
42.4
1998
51
.
41.9
2011
52
.
41.7
2011
53
.
41.5
2008
54
.
41.3
2001
55
.
40.9
2007 est.
56
.
40.8
1998
57
.
40.5
2010
58
.
40.2
2010
59
.
40.1
2001
60
.
40.0
2005 est.
61
.
40.0
FY08/09
62
.
39.7
2007
63
.
39.5
2007
64
.
39.4
2005-06
65
.
39.4
2007
66
.
39.2
2008
67
.
39.0
2011
68
.
39.0
2004
69
.
39.0
2000
70
.
39.0
2006 est.
71
.
38.5
2007
72
.
38.0
2008
73
.
37.9
2008 est.
74
.
37.7
2005
75
.
37.6
2007
76
.
37.6
2008
77
.
37.6
2008
78
.
36.8
2003
79
.
36.8
2009
80
.
36.8
2004
81
.
36.7
2008
82
.
36.5
2008
83
.
36.5
2003
84
.
36.2
1997
85
.
36.2
2007
86
.
35.5
2009
87
.
35.3
1995
88
.
35.2
2010
89
.
34.5
2008
90
.
34.4
2001
91
.
34.2
2011
92
.
34.1
2009
93
.
34.0
2007
94
.
33.9
2010
95
.
33.7
2008
96
.
33.4
2007
97
.
33.2
2011
98
.
33.2
2005
99
.
33.0
2005
100
.
32.8
2010
101
.
32.7
2008
102
.
32.6
2006
103
.
32.1
2005
104
.
32.0
2005
105
.
32.0
2010
106
.
31.9
2007 est.
107
.
31.9
2011
108
.
31.3
2010
109
.
31.0
2009
110
.
30.9
2007
111
.
30.9
2008
112
.
30.7
2011 est.
113
.
30.6
FY07/08
114
.
30.3
2008
115
.
30.0
FY05/06
116
.
30.0
2000
117
.
29.6
2010
118
.
29.0
2005
119
.
28.9
2011
120
.
28.2
2008
121
.
28.2
2009
122
.
28.0
2006
123
.
28.0
2005
124
.
27.4
2011
125
.
27.2
2008
126
.
27.0
2006
127
.
26.8
2008
128
.
26.3
2007
129
.
26.0
2005
130
.
26.0
2005
131
.
25.0
2008
132
.
24.8
2011 est.
133
.
24.7
2009
134
.
24.3
2010
135
.
23.8
2011
136
.
23.0
2005
137
.
NA
NA

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Appendix C
Calculation of optimal reserves

Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Infinite Probes2
Infinite Probes 2
Andre Willers
30 April 2008

http://andreswhy.blogspot.com/ “Infinite Probes’

From discussing this with various recipients , there seems to be a need for a simpler explanation . I thought I had explained it in the simplest fashion possible . The subject matter is inherently complex .

But , here goes .

How much must you save ?
If you save too little , a random fluctuation can wipe you out .
If you save too much , you lose opportunity costs . If you are in competition , this loss can be enough to lose the competition (ie you die)

Intuitively , you can realize there is an optimum level of saving .

Methods exist of calculating this optimum in very specific instances (ie portfolios of shares ,eg Kelly criteria , or tactics in war eg MiniMax ) .

The General Case
We need to hold a Reserve in case Something goes wrong . But we do not know what thing goes wrong .

Infinite Probes tries to answer the general case . What is really , really surprising is that a answer is possible .

The Infinite bit comes from using the mathematical expansion of the Definition of Eulers Constant e = ( 1 + 1/2! + 1/ 3! + … 1/n! + …)
Where n!= n*(n-1)*(n-2)*(n-3)*…*(1)

This approaches a constant , widely used in mathematics and physics .
(e = 2.718…) .

All we need is a system that can be subdivided indefinitely (to infinity) .

First , we divide by 1
Then 2
Then 3
Then 4

And so forth till infinity .

What is important is not that we do know what these divisions are , only that they are possible . We also do not know which one element goes wrong .

The other critical insight is that it is the relation between elements that is important . (Permutations) (The failure of an element in total isolation cannot affect the whole system by definition .)

We can count the number of relationships where there is failure of one element .
It is n! , where n is number of divisions where only one failure .

Multiple failures are handled by summing :

Our Reserve(R ) is divided by n to infinity and summed .

TotReserve= R*( 1 + 1/2! + 1/ 3! + … 1/n! + …)
TotReserve= R * e

To find the boundaries of our Reserve , we set TotReserve = Cost

Then

R = 1/e * Cost
R ~ 0.37 * Cost

What does this mean?
This method measures the upper boundary of the reserve needed to survive failures in any element of the Cost-Universe . Ie , internal fluctuations .

This is the surprising bit . Any society that keeps at least 37% reserves , can only be destroyed by something outside it’s envelope . It is internally stable , no matter what .

Empires like the Ancient Egyptians , Romans , Chinese are possible , as long as there is no climactic fluctuation , new inventions , diseases ,etc . Rare events . Hence the technological stasis of old civilizations . The two are synonymous .

This is true at any scale (except quantal , by definition.) .

Individuals too . Humans can be seen as empires of noospheres .

The upper boundary does not take any double-counting into account . It is true for any system whatsoever .

A truly remarkable precise result from such general axioms .

The Lower Boundaries .
This is where it gets interesting .
Remember , we are just counting the number of ways in which permutations of one element can fail . We then sum them to get the effect of the failures of other elements

The easiest is the business that just starts and is not selling anything . It fails on n elements on every term . It’s floor capital must then be
R=Cost/(1+e)
R=0.27*Cost

This is the initial reserve to get off the ground .
This is true in any ecosystem . This is why it is so difficult to start a new business , or why a new species cannot succeed . Or why waves of pandemics are scarcer .

For the epidemically minded , this 10% difference is responsible for the demise of the Black Death ( smallpox outcompeted bubonic plaque variants for the CR5 access site.Ironically , the reason why we have only a limited HIV plague is the high competition for this site , probably some flu vectors . As one would expect , the incidence of HIV then becomes inversely proportional to connectivity (ie flights) .

A cessation of airplane flights will then lead to a flare-up of diseases like these .
Not exactly what anybody has in mind . )

When we find that we really need the spread of infectious vectors to stay healthy , then we know we have really screwed ourselves .

These are the two main boundaries .
The literature is full of other limits the series can approach . Keep a clear head on what the physical significance is .

Fat
I cannot leave the subject without the thing closest to human hearts : appearance .
Fat and fitness .
Sadly , the present fad for leanness is just that . The period of superfluous food is coming to an end .
Rich individuals can afford to be lean because the reserves are in the monetary wealth Women have to bear children individually , so they cannot store the needed reserves externally . Hence their fat storage is close to the theoretical optimum even in Western societies (33%) . In other societies the percentage is about 37-40% .

Human males have been bred (Mk III humans) for muscle and little fat (8% in a superbly fit male) . He does not have reserves to withstand even garrison duty (even little diseases will lay him low .) Note the frequent references to diseases laying whole armies low .

Note what is left out : the camp-followers . They survived The women and babyfat children . Every army seeded the invaded area with women and children .

The bred soldier has to eat a high-carb food frequently : not meat or fat , his body cannot store it . This is the definition of a wheat-eating legionary .

Ho ! Ho! Ho!
The Atkinson diet .
No wonder it does not make sense in evolutionary terms .
Mesomorphic humans have been bred not to transform expensive proteins and fats into bodymass .

The soldier-class were kept on a carbohydrate leash , which could only be supplied by farming .


The Smell of Horses .

Horses exude pheromones that promote body-leanness in humans . This has an obvious advantage to horses . Horses are breeding jockeys .

The time-span is enough : at least 8 000 years . (400 generations)

Because pregnant women cannot ride horses , there was a selection pressure to breed horses who have a pheromone that block female dominance pheromones , especially since females have to weigh more because of fat-reserve considerations .

Outside a farming environment , horses will sculpt their riders as much as the riders are sculpting them .

Small Mongolian ponies , small Mongolians .

This is why alpha-males like horses and horse-dominated societies were able to conquer and keep matriarchies .

Note the effect of the pheromones on women riders . Androgeny .
On males it becomes extreme blockage of oestrogen . It seems like a surge of male hormones , but it is just an imbalance . (If too much male hormones , the men just kill their horses )

This is why the auto-mobile had such a big sociological effect . No horses , so the men became more effeminate .

Want to be Lean and Mean ?
Sniff Horse sweat pheromone .
Perfumiers take note .

Dogs

The other leg of the human-horse-dog triumvirate .
Dogs accept female pack-leaders and have evolutionary reasons for blocking horse inhibitions of human female pheromones .

While the males are away , the females look after and rely on the dogs .
(The reason why Mongols ride from yurt to yurt: they are too scared of the dogs.)

With dogs around , the male testosterone activity is ameliorated . This is a well known effect , especially if horses are around .

Hence the female love of lap-dogs . They are actually quite ferocious , and exude large amounts of pheromones that soothes the savage male breast .

Your attention is drawn to the Pekinese lapdog , which has had a disproportionately large effect on human history .

If this sounds convoluted , it is because this is exactly how this type of bio-system operates : by inhibitions of inhibitions of inhibitions ,etc .

Andre

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Appendix D
Neo-Vikings


Andre Willers
8 Feb 2014
Synopsis:
Raid-or-Trade is coming back in fashion as social orders collapses .

Discussion :
1.Climate shifts cause social disruptions .

2.This causes degradation in defence capabibilties .

3.Opportunistic raiders take advantage .

4.Past :
4.1Sea Peoples
or 

4.2 Vikings
Essentially , climate change weakened civilized defensive systems and also forced barbarians to go a-Viking .
“Modern history has its origins in the tumultuous 6th and 7th centuries. During this period agricultural failures and the emergence of the
plague contributed to: (1) the demise of ancient super cities, old Persia, Indonesian civilizations, the Nasca culture of South America,
and southern Arabian civilizations; (2) the schism of the Roman Empire with the conception of many nation states and the re-birth of
a united China; and (3) the origin and spread of Islam while Arian Christianity disappeared. In his book, Catastrophe An Investigation
into the Origins of the Modern World, author David Keys explores history and archaeology to link all of these human upheavals to
climate destabilization brought on by a natural catastrophe, with strong evidence from tree-ring and ice-core data that it occurred in
535 AD. With no supporting evidence for an impact-related event, I worked with Keys to narrow down the possibilities for a volcanic
eruption that could affect both hemispheres and bring about several decades of disrupted climate patterns, most notably colder and
drier weather in Europe and Asia, where descriptions of months with diminished sun light, persistent cold, and anomalous summer
snow falls are recorded in 6th-century written accounts.”



4.3 Formosans

Something similar happened (from genetic evidence) in Formosa to trigger the population of the Pacific Islands .
Other cultural traits often point to Taiwan as the strong link in spreading Australasian-speaking people and their traditions through Southeast Asia and the Pacific.
Indeed Australasian people migrated via extraordinary maritime journeys as far as Madagascar in the west, Easter Island in the east, Hawaii in the north and New Zealand in the south. These migrants propagated their cultural traditions, often modified to suit local conditionshttp://cdncache-a.akamaihd.net/items/it/img/arrow-10x10.png and preferences.
- See more at: http://australianmuseum.net.au/BlogPost/Science/Our-Global-Neighbours-Pacific-culture-ancestry-in-Formosa#sthash.gm3tTliE.dpuf


5.Future :
5.1 States lose the control of armed force .
This has already happened . Private security (essentially private armies ) ( cf Condottierry) offers services to wealthy individuals whishing to escape .

5.2 The traditional route to escape these troubles is by sea . But with newish technology , you need a fleet . Single ships simply won’t hack it .

5.3 Postulated  Scenario :
Social order in RSA collapses .
The region is wealthy . It has a large shipbuilding industry . Also large private security companies.
Armed to the teeth , with very sophisticated logistics .
People flee via ships . They have to survive . They arm . They can only survive in large groups with heavy arms . Funding then has to be done via Viking-type raid-settlement-trade .

Do not worry about the primitive Somali pirates .
South African pirates fleets will be much worse , although a bit more professional .

I did not expect this .
But should have .
Oh Well .
Andre
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 
Appendix BB

Guest Post: Why Belgium Can Never Work
Tyler Durden's picture
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 05/15/2014 19:46 -0400

The political situation in Belgium - as Europe heads into elections - could well be the writing on the wall for every European country.
Submitted by 'Sudden Debt' as first appearing in Belgian Beurs,
Economists and politicians love to juggle with figures for the trees so you can not see the forest.
Economics is not always easy, but we have noticed that you can do it with an island of 100 people to make it understandable.
Let's call this island "RAINBOWLAND" .
Overall, it looks like this:
Of the 100 residents, 28 were working in the private sector . They go fishing , build houses , canoes , ...

Of the remaining 72 people , 40 are working for the government .

They provide education , security, secret service and justice .

But they also set rules for the workers . They determine import quotas for fishing , ensuring that everyone pays taxes and they invent new rules which everyone must adhere.

There are still 15 people who have no work. They receive an unemployment allowance .

The remaining 17 residents are children , pensioners and long-term sick. They receive money or children , pensions and sickness benefits.
As people who work in the private sector in Rainbowland they are the only ones that effectively produce something , they pay the taxes they pay the others with.
You can say that people who work for the government work to support the production, but in practice it is often the opposite.
Thanks to all kinds of rules and laws, workers must spend more time to comply with these rules, thus production slows.
Of course you do not have to be a genius to realize that a country such as " Rainbowland" can not survive in reality.
It is impossible to operate when only slightly more than a quarter of the population ensures overall welfare.
However there is a "country " in the world who gets it done. And that "land " is ... Wallonia in Belgium!
Of the 3.56 million inhabitants, there are only 1 million to work in the private sector . This corresponds to 28 % of the total population . (Or 28 people on an island of 100 inhabitants . )
The rest works for the government (40 % ) , unemployed ( 15 % ) or too young, too old or too sick to work ( 17 % ) .
Why is Wallonia successful in this as the only "country" in the world ?
Because they can count on the solidarity of the Flemings .
Since as many as 2.25 million people in Flanders in the private, throughout this region creates a lot of wealth .
The government has decided that workers should cede to Wallonia. An ( increasing ) share of that prosperity in Flanders In solidarity .
However, this solidarity with each new government seems to be increasing. The univercity of Leuven recently figured it transfers 16 billion euro .
That's 16 billion euro annually moved from Flanders to Wallonia .
But such figures do not, of course say a lot .
Let's make it comprehensible again .
I just told you that there are 2.25 million people in Flanders in private and that they pay with their production for those who do not produce .
16,000,000,000 divided by 2,250,000 euros " workers in the private " = 7.111 euro
Anyone with a job in the private pays 7,111 euros in taxes that go directly to Wallonia annually. That is just under 600 euros per month!
And it does not stop there.
Because this diligent worker not only pays for the Walloons . He also pays for its own government and solidarity with other Flemings .
What is the cost of this for a resident of Belgium ?
Well , all governments together spend 208.5 billion from last year .
That is what the government costs annually . And that amount is increasing year after year by the way. Ten years ago, for example, the expenditure amounted to "only" 143 billion.
So now we spend 65 billion per year more than we did 10 years ago !
Anyway, we were talking about the cost of government...208.5 billion in spending .
We have to share again by the number of workers in the private sector . In Flanders , Wallonia and Brussels together is that about 3.57 million people.
That gives ... 58,305 euros per year.
Take your calculator not hesitate to it to check the numbers. I also needed to recalculate that figure to believe these numbers several times
58,305 per year ... that's 4,858 euros per month .
Every working person in the private sector should therefore pay 4,858 euros per month in taxes to cover government spending.
And if you have the misfortune to live in Flanders, it becomes even more . Which is 4,858 euros with an average and as you know the Fleming pay a extra of 600 euros to Wallonia.
To finance the government they obviously need to increasing taxes
The government spending is now 55 % .
That means that 55 cents of every euro earned in Belgium, goes to the government .
However, more money for the government , also means less money for the population.
Less money to invest and consume .
In a country where the people have less and less money , the economy has obviously difficulties to grow.
Ok , we know that since the 2008 crisis and that is a convenient excuse to explain why there is no growth in Belgium .
We then conveniently forget that the economy in the previous period (2000-2006) also barely grew. The growth in this period was a meager 1.6% annualized .
If we look at it over a wider period , the figures are only sadder . The Belgian economy between 2000 and 2014, grew only 1.3 % on an annual basis .
The growing government stifles the economy.
However Flemings realize that all too well, remove the Walloon parties who seek a large government yet again!
A logical evolution since this language group has a direct interest in big government .
Nearly 3/4ths of the population who need government because of his or her income . You can hardly expect enthusiasm for smaller government from this quarter.
The Fleming wants , but sees his voice always evaporate in a left-wing government .
You just can not get around the socialists in Wallonia , so the socialists automatically form the basis for a federal government . Always.
And with the socialists in the government you automatically get a left policies increasing government .
The conclusion , for me at least , is that Wallonia and Flanders are two areas with a totally different idea about the role of government .
If one side says "white", you can hear the other side say " black " .
I'm not just talking about economic issues .
Also, on migration and justice , there is a lot of disagreement.
You need two parts of the country that rarely agree with each other to work together?
Is it so crazy to aim for a model in which each party in his part of the country's has to organise their own funding?
Because it seems to me the only way Belgium can continue to operate long term is to have separate accounts because as of now, one side keeps buying shoes with the joint account while the other side has to pay the rent with what’s left.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

No comments: