In USA purple and violet are expelled. It is either red or blue.

Amanda Ripley in “America must step out of this self-destructive zombie dance” Washington Post November 1, references an ad by two candidates running for governor of Utah, in which they committed to respect and uphold democratic norms and a peaceful transition of power.

In a world where we hear polarization artists singing “Anyone you hate I can hate better; I can hate anyone better than you.” “No, you can’t “Yes, I can… Yes, I can”, that sounds like a great initiative. 

I would though like to see included a direct reference to the need of respecting the middle ground, the undecided, those swimming in the middle of the river being thrown stones at from both shores.

I speak from personal experience. Decades ago, in my homeland Venezuela, in an Op-Ed I wrote: “I write in green but my readers send me loads of hate mail, based on that they can only read me in yellow or blue.”

In America right now, purple and violet seem prohibited. It is either blue or red, and both blue and red polarization profiteers seem to love it that way.

PS. https://perkurowski.blogspot.com/2010/05/speakers-corner-speakers-have-moved-to.html

I have some ideas about what could compete with Facebook/Twitter

Chris Hughes, a co-founder of Facebook, a co-chairman of the Economic Security Project and a senior adviser at the Roosevelt Institute opines in the New York Times:

“No one knows exactly what Facebook’s competitors would offer to differentiate themselves.”

I have some ideas (most apply to Twitter too):

1. That it guarantees that I am always messaging or receiving messages from parties that I can clearly and absolutely accurately identify, with ease.

2. That I am targeted in an at least a 95% perfect way, so that my already way too scarce attention span is not being further wasted away by irrelevant/useless advertising/information.

3. That it shares with the participants 50-50 all advertising revenues generated by exploiting their data. Either to each one his respective production quota, or by means of helping to fund a universal basic income.

4. That it does it utmost to keep out all those redistribution or polarization profiteers whom, with their messages of hate or envy, can destroy our societies.

5. That it swears never ever to form any type of joint venture, with any type of Big Brother.

PS. Should we at least, as a minimum-minimorum, not require all social media with over a million followers, to openly publish the algorithms they use to maximize their ad revenues?

https://perkurowski.blogspot.com/2017/11/those-bothering-us-and-wasting-our.html

“The wealth of 62 richest equals that of 3.6 billion poorest” That‘s a deviously false odiously divisive argument.

I come from Venezuela where I have seen a discourse full of hatred, carried out by those who want to profit financially or politically from promoting redistribution, destroy a country. I cannot sit back and see the Venezuelan tragedy reenacted on a global scale.

As always in all useful lies there are traces of truth. Of course the market value of the possessions of the 62 richest, especially after being inflated by means of fiscal deficits bailouts and QEs, could be similar to that of the market value of the possessions of the world’s 3.6 billion poorest. 

But, what does that mean when there is no way to liquidate the possessions of the rich in the market, so as to be able to transfer a similar amount of wealth to the poor. What on earth does a $25 million dollar penthouse in New York, which only some equally wealthy can buy, signify to the poor in terms of access to a better life?

And what's to be gained from the wealthy selling all their Picasso's and the Picasso's losing a lot of value? How do you morph a $200 million Picasso hanging on a wall of a wealthy into real purchasing power for the poor?

So if we are to analyze wealth inequality with intellectual honesty in any concrete applicable way, we should refer exclusively to the inequality that exists in transferable wealth. 

And, besides that, I swear that, in years of life lived, air breathed, water drunk, land trampled, food eaten, laughs and tears shed, those 3.6 billion poor posses at least a billion more times than those 62 most wealthy.

And this does not mean I do not commiserate with the poor of the world, and would not like them to have much more resources available in order to diminish their hardships. I do so very much, and that is precisely why I insist that what we must do, is to analyze what type of interventions help to generate the existing inequalities, and what blocks the opportunities for the poor to reach up. And on that route, one of the most important steps is keeping the redistribution profiteers at distance.

And this does not mean I am against redistribution. In fact before we are able to enable the opportunities that can lead to a sustainable betterment for the poor, I accept the need of redistribution, even if that is clearly less sustainable. But, that redistribution should take place in the most direct and cost effective way among citizens… again with the least interference possible by redistribution profiteers.

In my Venezuela that starts by sharing out its oil revenues directly to the citizens so as to avoid these falling into the hands of redistribution profiteers like Hugo Chávez.

And again, much more important for the poor than having wealth redistributed, is the generation of more wealth for them, which can only happen by enabling their access to opportunities. 

And in the enablement of opportunities there is much to do. For instance we must ask whether open-ended patents, no profit limits, stimulates or blocks more growth and human creativity. And we must stop that odious regulatory discrimination against “the risky’s” access to bank credit. This last really decrees inequality.

And for the health of our planet's sake...keep all those non-productive climate change profiteers out of the way. As I have often said, if the fight against climate change fall into the hands of something like our bank regulators...we're toast! If we really want to help on all fronts, let the fight against climate change go arm in arm with that of the fight inequality, by using Universal Basic Income.

Did poverty in the world decrease over the last decades because the world redistributed wealth, or embraced the MDGs (Millennium Development Goals), or because many (like China) allowed their citizens more opportunities to generate wealth?

"Panama Papers" Don't let redistribution agitation profiteers raise your expectations.

Legend holds it that when Otelo Saraiva de Carvalho, chief strategist of the 1974’s Carnation Revolution in Lisbon, told Sweden’s Olof Palme: “In Portugal we want to get rid of the rich”, Palme replied, “how curious, in Sweden we only aspire to get rid of the poor”

Why is the social demand for hate increasing so much?

Why is the social demand for hate increasing so much, in a world where so much good advancements have supposedly been achieved? 

Might it be some are wetting the appetite for hate? Is that their business model?

If so, who?

You tell me.

Distinctively Alike

We so frequently hear about the importance of finding ones identity that sometimes we forget that our human reality is also to share so many identities and so that even though we should feel identified we also need to fight against being miniaturized and put into little boxes as is preached for better than none by Amartya Sen the Nobel Price in Economics who also a professor in philosophy, might also line up for a Nobel Peace Price.

Sen, in his most recent book Identity and Violence attacks vehemently those who seed divisions fomenting bad identities, quite frequently with bad intentions. From his own memories as a child in the India of the 40’s Sen remembers “the speed with which the broad human beings of January were suddenly transformed into the ruthless Hindus and fierce Muslims of July . . . hundreds of thousands perished at the hands of people who, led by the commanders of carnage, killed others on behalf of their ‘own people’”. Sen concludes that “Violence is fomented by the imposition of singular and belligerent identities on gullible people, championed by proficient artisans of terror”.

Unfortunately, Sen does not face difficulties finding more recent examples and Rwanda, Yugoslavia and even the prisons of Abu Graib are all places where terror find its origin in a “you know, they are so different from us”. Of course from Sen’s book to our Venezuelan reality of "pro chavistas and not chavistas”, those divisive and senseless identities that we did not even dream of less than a decade ago, there is too little distance for us not to feel deeply anguished.

Friends, let us at all times discredit those who try to instigate us buying into an identity that only looks to divide and let us instead search for with run-amok-humanity all those identities that unites us, like Venezuelan, fathers, mothers, children and our taste for arepas.

Friends, let us not allow anyone to divide us, in us and them, because as humans, in each one of us there is so much of them, and in each one of them there is so very much of us, and so that, at the moment of truth, we are all in fact distinctively alike. If this sound like a sure recipe for a collective multiple personality disorder, so be it, the mental health of our Venezuela depends on it.

Translated from El Universal, Caracas, June 1, 2006

PS. Social media, which allows polarization and redistribution profiteers to send out their hate and envy messages at zero marginal cost, has become social harmony’s worst enemy.

Other posts in which I started to fight odious polarization profiteers

Red and blue, or, red or blue

Communications in a polarized world