Economic Atrocities

I have spent most of the day away from the computer for a change, which has been nice. We even made it to visit some friends and take munkki (Finnish cinnamon and sugar donuts) as an offering. It was a bit of a surprise though, as we took 12 donuts and it was around 40€, but I don't remember it being quite so expensive, and I have been a relatively frequent visitor. If this continues, the donut inflation is going to be more expensive to me than the change in fuel prices.

How is it that even though oil prices per barrel were so much higher back in 2008, the prices at the pump never got close to where they are now? Factor in the inflation rate over the last 15 years and the price per barrel should actually be pretty reasonable in comparison, right? Why is this a thing today? Is the supply that low? Is it so hard to move it around still?

Seems a bit fishy to me, but I don't know much about the dynamics of oil prices except that when barrel price goes up, the price at the pump immediately raises - but when price goes down, it doesn't drop at the pump.

For example in Finland, the current price is about 2.30€ per liter, 75% tax included. But, you see that 2020 dip where barrel price was 20 dollars? That should have meant that the fuel cost at the pump should have been no more than 46 cents at the pump - however, at that time it was still around 1.60€ - the math doesn't add up, does it? Not only that, there weren't delivery issues at that point either. I am sure there is some sense in there somewhere, but even as a child, I haven't been able to understand how they price oil, including that even when the price spikes, the petrol they have already shipped and bought, has been obtained at the lower prices. Constant price gouging, regardless of supply.

I wonder what the price would be if it was all managed on blockchains through algorithms like a liquidity pool, where the price at the pump was dynamically changed with precision based on when the fuel was obtained and at what price. Would the price go up, or down?

I suspect that if it was possible in a hypothetical world where all supply chain data was being managed precisely and transparently, that prices in many industries would fall, as we would see just where the value was going. Also, I think in some places the price would increase, because the market would decide, rather than the backroom dealers and lobby groups.

I think this would be especially true if we all had individual ownership and control of our assets and posit that under such a system, war itself would likely become extinct, because while people don't seem to mind their tax money being spent on war, they would be Far more resistant if they had to open up their own wallets and empty them out in order to by the equipment and people required to attack. They might be more willing to pay for defense though.

For example, in the US, the 2020 military spending budget was approximately 721 billion dollars (777B this year) - is that a lot? I don't know, but with 329 million people in the US, it means that every man, woman and child would have to be willing to contribute on average $2184 dollars each. Let's say that 50% are willing to give in this way.

In 2020, 165M people worked in some capacity, which is conveniently around half the population. Assuming and if only half of them are willing to contribute, in order to raise that 721 billion, they would have to each contribute 4x an individual, meaning that each would now have to contribute $8,749 dollars. How many are willing? And, this is only in the first year and will be required every year.

So, half the working population on average would need to give 17% of their salary in order to pool enough for the defense budget every year. And, they will have to do this, even though the other half are choosing not to contribute to the military in this way, which means they will have 17% more on average to spend on other things.

What are the chances of raising that kind of capital to go to war?

Now, that obviously would cripple the US military, which spend three times as much on the military as China and thirteen times more than Russia. But, in a fantasy world of individual ownership and control at a global level (something that has never existed before), all countries would be hamstrung and the ability to build armies would be severely hampered. Yes, small groups could form, but it would be tribal, not global - and many other group would gather to put together decentralized forces also, but these would be disbanded very quickly,, much like the ability to undelegate from an abusive account.

I know, I know... Fantasy world.

But, if people really did want to end the wars and even the potential for mass wars, it isn't through proliferation of weapons so everyone is equally equipped, nor is it through an attempt to reduce all weapons to zero, it is through defunding the possibility of gathering an army of any significant size and the only way to do that is, providing an economy where people make individual decisions.

Now, in this world you could say that private armies could be built by the billionaires, oligarchs and mega corporations, but that is not the case either. The only reason those people and organizations can exist at the size they are, is because of the economy we currently have. If everyone had ownership and granular control over their finances, whenever an organization got too controlling or abusive, people would stop supporting it, essentially defunding its ability to continue to grow.

While this is a simplistic view of a decentralized economy and there are many things to consider along the way, what is obvious is why the current controlling groups do not want decentralized finance, because they lose control over our wealth. Currently, we might think we have ownership and some say in what happens because we might vote a leader, but that is not how this economy works at all - we are powerless because, we do not even have access to our own resources.

At the moment, they are freezing the assets of Putin, Russian oligarchs and government upper hierarchy as if this is a blow to them - but what everyone fails to miss is who's wealth that really is - it has been extracted from 145 million Russians over the space of decades - it belongs to them. If over that same period of time all Russians had control of their own wealth, do you think they would be at war in Ukraine now? Do you think Putin would lead them at all?

Highly unlikely.

As I will keep saying - the real war is between centralization and decentralization. The entire current economy is centralized and facilitates atrocities of many kinds.

Don't forget it.

Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]