(AI) Technology doesn't democratize efficiency. It benefits early adopters

Technology doesn't democratize things. Initially, it benefits early adopters. Those with the resources and education to adopt and adapt fast. 

The new tech buzzword is: AI agents make everybody more efficient.

Yes, it does. But not equally.

It's a good punchline and buzzword, saying that technology democratizes things - information, knowledge, education, transportation, resources, communication, or, with contemporary AI agents: work efficiency.

But this is rarely true.

I don't remember any technological innovation who really democratized things - at least at first. 

Technology tends to benefit first the rich and the educated - those who already have the capacity to invest, absorb and adapt faster. 

Yes, technology trickles down, eventually. But not immediately. 

It was the same with automobiles - first adopters were rich people; later beneficiaries were industrialists who sold (Ford Model T) affordable cars to the working class. 

Same with writing, printing, books, and newspapers: for hundreds of years, the beneficiaries were still the upper and middle classes, who were already literate, or had the resources to educate their children. For hundreds of years after Gutenberg, the majority of the population remained illiterate and didn't really benefit. Intergenerational mobility was significantly lower at the time, when education was a luxury, and most children had to start working VERY early in factories or agriculture. 

Same with the internet and email: first few years, it was reserved for universities, researchers, top tech entrepreneurs, academia, financial magnates - not everybody. 

So no, AI is not for everybody, it doesn't democratize first, and it doesn't benefit everybody equally. We have to move and adapt fast.

New relevant study (from Marius Comper): 

https://www.ft.com/content/0873e3cb-cb02-4b47-941f-14da74149670?fbclid=IwdGRjcARa7tVjbGNrBFruyGV4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkDDM1MDY4NTUzMTcyOAABHtvpmg9E9NL4vg8-W7XJcFqyz5I2YLwqWuTkFra4mwAO2yOhKZZzgCDBPoPh_aem_WAnPyG78hQSzOTJtuOIDVw

See also discussion 

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/18YjsXCRPB/

Elitocracy is more unstable then democracy. Don't restrict voting based on literacy

Although it sounds fancy (elitist), elitocracy is much more unstable than democracy, as a form of government. 

The main reasons for which we support democracy: 

• more equitable distribution of wealth, privileges and justice; 
• more stable on the long term (less prone to atrocities or war).

But a lot of intellectuals believe that elites would make a better government, and would take better decisions.

Some elitists believe that government should be formed directly from elites (usually intellectual elites). 

Some moderates believe that only elites should have the right to vote. 

Some even more moderates want minimum thresholds for voter rights, e.g. literacy tests.

I should note, there are studies that show that intelligent people are not necessarily better leaders. A good leader has a mix of social skills (EQ), IQ, network, and even compassion.

But the bigger problem is that all forms of elitocracy are easier to abuse.

Elitocracy tends to turn into oligarchy (which almost always then becomes a dictatorship). 

Because the question is: who decides who has the right to vote? 

And this question becomes: how do we make sure "our people" have the right to vote? 

Where “our people” means our relatives, our children, our friends, those with the same background, who live on our street, went to the same schools, work with us, invest in the same companies, our investors, suppliers and clients.

And then, it's a simple recipe to allow only "our people"  to vote: you use your initial political majority to pass favorable laws (for large groups), and apply exceptions (for small groups).

And your majority becomes stronger and stronger, and you eliminate more and more voters from participating.

In the past, they used voter registration based on property ownership. This sounds obsolete, so we'll just skip it.

But a significant number of smart people want to implement voter registration by literacy. Which might sound reasonable, right? 

Well, first of all, you just excluded poor and isolated communities from voting. Which in democracies is typically considered discrimination. 

Then, you need to apply exceptions. So you apply criteria such as proof of birth, or proof of residence, and at the same time, you make it much more difficult for certain categories to register, or obtain papers. 

And then, you apply even stronger exceptions. So you can implement grandfather laws.

So, although it sounds fancy (elitist), elitocracy is much more unstable than democracy. 

It tends to be abused, becomes oligarchy, and then autocracy.

Belief in God is nothing like belief in science

Many believers think that believing in a god or a divine force is the same as believing in a scientific theory.

Obviously, this is a fallacy - a clever but misleading play on words. Belief in a scientific theory has absolutely nothing to do with belief in a deity. In fact, even using the word “belief” in a scientific context is inaccurate.

I suspect this is a way for some believers to logically justify their faith - by playing with language and framing things in a way that equates science with belief.

On the opposite extreme, equally unfounded, are those who claim they can prove the existence of a god or the supernatural.

Personally, I find these attempts - both to equate faith with science and to “prove” faith - unnecessary. Believers should embrace the reality that their faith has nothing to do with science, that it isn’t proven, and that it doesn’t need to be.

After all, it’s easy to “believe” when you have proof. At that point, it’s no longer belief - you simply know. The real challenge is to have faith without guarantees or evidence.

And perhaps that’s exactly what believers should take pride in.

Notes

1. In science, the word "belief" is rarely suitable. We prefer hypothesis, model, "we propose".

2. We all know that science is not absolute. Scepticism is built-in. There is no absolute scientific truth. All scientific theories are evolving. Some theories are proven simply wrong. Some evolve into better theories.

The concept of falsifiability is worth mentioning. Religious or supernatural belief is not falsifiable.

3. Science produces provisional, evidence-based truths.

Some theories are extremely stable. Some not.

4. So here's the interesting question, it's the meta: what is truth in science?

The theory that I particularly love is utilitarian/pragmatic. It is very suitable in engineering, and in social sciences (management, sociology), but also applicable in all sciences.

"A theory is true if it works."

5. Mathematics is probably the weirdest science, btw. It is at the same time very practical, and also very abstract, both in language and concepts. It is full of paradoxes - it even negates itself (it proves that it cannot be complete, it is limited by design - Gödel's incompleteness theorems). 

And mathematics also works: we use it exceptionally well to cook food, to build houses, generate fake photos, discuss on Facebook, and to put people on the moon. 

7. So no, we don't "believe" in science, or scientific theories. We build it, we discover it, we invent it, we demonstrate and prove it, we challenge and evolve it, we apply it in practice.

8. No matter what theory of science we use, the idea that we "believe" in a scientific theory is, in principle, inappropriate.

The EU Inc. new type of company: Expectations vs. Reality

REALITY CHECK. The new EU Inc. type of company is a great initiative, but you will STILL need to apply all the local, national and regional reporting, taxes and authorisations, including taxes at all levels, employment taxes, GDPR, etc etc etc, and all other regulations that all administrations and the EU will continue to invent and enforce. 

These initiatives are VERY political and sound nice, but the reality is that there are a lot of things yet to be done.

"Today, the European Commission presented its proposal for EU Inc., a new single set of corporate rules, building the cornerstone and starting point for the EU's 28th regime. EU Inc. is an optional, digital-by-default European corporate framework. It will make it easier for businesses to start, operate and grow across the EU – incentivising them to stay in Europe, and encourage those who once looked elsewhere to return." 

The biggest innovation of the EU Inc. initiative is the definition and facilities for innovative startups and scale-ups.

But opening a new company was anyway the easiest thing to do in a lot of countries (with a few exceptions).

Then, the operation of the company remains pretty much the same as today. All the local, regional and national taxes, rules and regulations remain applicable.

AS AN EXAMPLE,

If you are a French citizen, with Romanian fiscal residency, with a personal property in Belgium, and own a company in Bulgaria, with customers in Poland and employees in Greece, you will pay:

* Tax on personal property (and rent) in Belgium.

* Profit tax in Bulgaria (depending on the type of business, also possibly in Poland - depending on local/national regulations and type of service. Most national fiscal authorities tax you depending on where you earned your profit, or effectively operate, not necessarily on the place of incorporation).

* Tax on income from dividends: in Romania.

* VAT in all countries where the company operates, mostly Bulgaria, but maybe also Poland (depending on the delivery location, type of product/service, and type of clients, e.g. if the client is registered for VAT purposes or not)

* Employee and employment taxes in Greece (and most probably also something in Bulgaria).

I am not joking.

EU creates regulations that kill European businesses and innovation, and then makes reports and recommendations to ease the regulations (such as the Draghi report, or all recent declarations of Mme Leyen, or of most politicians).

For instance, one of the biggest barriers for cross-national businesses are the banking and financial regulations, imposed mostly by the EU and ECB. Opening a new bank account for a new business is probably THE MOST DIFFICULT operation in most European countries.

Another barrier to startups is the GDPR. And the AI Act will be hitting us soon.

IN CONCLUSION, these initiatives are VERY political and sound nice, but the reality is that there are a lot of things yet to be done. 

The press release is here.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_26_614

Inflation is a proven method to tax the poor and middle-class.

Inflation is an ancient-proven method to tax the poor and middle-class.

Inflation was not invented in 1971, when Richard Nixon formally abandoned the gold standard. The UK had already stopped internal convertibility in 1931, US in 1933.

Gold and silver were theoretically also “convertible” during the hyperinflation of the 3rd-century crisis of the Roman Empire, or in Ptolemaic Egypt. 

The inflation of 16th-century imperial Spain had nothing to do with convertibility. 

Governments have generated inflation both with and without gold and silver.

Of course, it’s remarkable that nobody understands what inflation actually is. 

Inflation is a hidden tax on the entire money supply, including bank deposits.

Plus a reduction of domestic production costs, to increase competitiveness in foreign markets in the short term. 

It’s remarkable what governments do with this. And it’s remarkable that almost no one understands it.

Inflation is a massive, hidden tax.