Let millions of ChatGPT bloom. Let millions of diverse worlds feed AI the data.

With unlimited hubris, very few regulators who thought they knew all about the risks to our bank systems, and also because of some political considerations, globalized risk adverse risk weighted bank capital/equity requirements.

They based their risk assessments on perceived risks; not conditioned to how banks usually reacted to perceived risk.

To determine the risks, they empowered some very few human fallible credit rating agencies.

And those few rating agencies, they got much of the information from some very few important audit corporations.

What could go wrong?

The perceived or decreed “safe”, e.g., governments, residential mortgages and assets rated as investment graded, were bound to get more bank credit and at lower risk adjusted interest rates than would otherwise have been the case. The perceived risky e.g., small businesses, entrepreneurs and consumers, bound to get less credit and at higher risk adjusted interest rates than would otherwise have been the case. De facto, more inequality was decreed.

The introduction of this abundantly clear systemic risk, completely ignored the value of a free market’s millions of diverse opinionated participants.

What could now go wrong with artificial intelligence?

April 2023, I had my first dialogue with ChatGPT. I got hooked. What amazing number of, for both of us, illuminating conversations I’ve had with it.

But May 2023, I asked, "Can AI be instructed to not tell the truth?", and it answered: 

"As an AI language model, my purpose is to provide accurate and helpful information to the best of my abilities. However, it is possible for AI to be programmed to generate responses that are not truthful.

In general, AI systems are only as unbiased and truthful as the data and programming that they are built upon. If an AI system is programmed to intentionally provide false information or to hide the truth, it can be used to propagate false narratives or disinformation campaigns.

Therefore, it is essential to ensure that AI systems are designed and used ethically, with a focus on accuracy, transparency, and accountability. This includes careful consideration of the data used to train AI models, as well as implementing safeguards to prevent intentional deception."

Ever since there’s not one day when I do not worry when I read, or hear, an opinion on the need to regulate AI. To guarantee diversity, and so that they all can keep a watchful eye on each other, I pray, as a minimum minimum: 

"Let millions of ChatGPT bloom"

"Let AI feed on millions of different opinion and data sources."

Since you don’t eat gold-bars, just redistributing of wealth solves very little, or even nothing.

The Guardian writes: “An alarming projection produced by the House of Commons library suggests that if trends seen since the 2008 financial crash were to continue, then the top 1% will hold 64% of the world’s wealth by 2030… equating to $305tn” “Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030”, April 7, 2018.

How awfully unjust… but… how do you productively convert that wealth into the products or assets that could be useful for the 99%, without unexpected consequences or without most wealth just going to a 1%, or less, of some new filthy-rich wealthy?

How much value of that $305tn of wealth would just evaporate by the redistribution? And what would that do to the value of the then projected $152 wealth in the hands of 99%?

For instance what would happen to the price of a Leonardo da Vinci’s “Salvator Mundi”, in which, someone very wealthy, agreed to freeze $450 million of his main-street purchase capacity? How do you turn that wealth into something the poorer of the 99% need?

Where would the stock market value head?

Where would the interest rate, for instance on public debt go?

Where would the prices of houses head?

And if wealth gets too much distributed, who is going to demand that which only the really wealthy 1% can afford to demand, and which creates a lot of jobs that would otherwise not exist?

It is amazing how much discussions there are about the need to redistribute wealth without any consideration to what that redistribution would entail. Could that be because that is not in the interest of any redistribution or polarization profiteers?

As I see it there is much more to be gained by capturing more income before it has been converted into wealth assets. Just redistributing existing wealth is a one-shot unsustainable top-down approach.

Much better is a very modest starting Universal Basic Income where you little by little begin to build up a societal dividend that will keep the redistribution and polarization profiteers at bay. And that is of course why the latter hate UBI… as it eats into the value of their franchise.

And of course, in order to fund that UBI you must find sustainable sources of income…like on the advertising revenues of Facebook and alike… like a special tax on revenues generated under the protection of an intellectual property right… like a special tax on revenues generated by those benefiting from close to monopoly high market shares… like a tax on whatever causes pollution and otherwise threatens our pied-a-terre… and so on

Oxfam, how do you redistribute wealth already created, without risking making the poor poorer?

Felix Salmon, when commenting on Oxfam’s “Reward work, not wealth: To end the inequality crisis, we must build an economy for ordinary working people, not the rich and powerful” writes: 

“The world’s billionaires – the richest 2,000 people on the planet – saw their wealth increase by a staggering $762 billion in just one year. That’s an average of $381 million apiece. If those billionaires had simply been content with staying at their 2016 wealth, and had given their one-year gains to the world’s poorest people instead, then extreme poverty would have been eradicated. Hell, they could have eradicated extreme poverty, at least in theory, by giving up just one seventh of their annual gains.”

That particular paragraph is spoken like a true redistribution profiteer 😞

First: Where do those “one-year gains” originate? If from criminal corruption, if from skewed central banks stimuli, if from exploiting monopoly and similar forces, then a reduction in that wealth increase would be absolutely justified and good… but, if that wealth increase came from true wealth creation, or even from heritage, then a reduction of it could have very negative consequences for all, especially for the poor.

Second: If that wealth has already been created and is consequently represented by assets, how does one liquidate those assets so as not to affect the value of those assets, or in other ways put markets at risk? One of those 2.000 billionaires is probably he who bought Leonardo da Vinci’s “Salvator Mundi” for $450 million. He, de facto, like with a sort of voluntary tax, froze $450 million of purchasing power on a wall, or in a safe box. How on earth does one go about to reconvert that into $450 million of new purchase power that could be handed over to the poor?

The Oxfam report contains many correct statements. I totally agree with that wealth should not be created by criminal and unfair behavior, or derived from crony statist relations; and I also agree with that wealth should not be used to abusively increase the influence of the wealthy in our societies.

But when the report states “To end extreme poverty, we must also end extreme wealth” I disagree. First because whether one likes it or not, wealth, as it is invested in assets, has de facto already been redistributed… like in the previous case to those who received the $450 million paid for the “Salvator Mundi”… to those who sell a luxury yacht… to those who sell handmade shoes in Milan… to governments by buying public debt… to markets by buying shares.

On the report Jeffrey Sachs comments: “Sometimes the super-rich call out Oxfam and others for ‘stoking class warfare’ but the truth is that in many societies, including my own, the United States, many of the super- rich have in effect declared war on the poor.”

That sounds precisely like what Chavez preached and now Maduro does in my Venezuela… and look where that has taken our poor country… with asset values and salaries totally destroyed over some very few years… a whole generation of Venezuelans growing up severely malnourished… and the Bolivarian revolutionaries blaming it all on the war declared on them by The Empire. 

Oxfam, a multinational confederation of NGOs, having issued this report, has now a moral obligation of explaining, once wealth has been created, how it can be redistributed without running the risks of making the poorest poorer. And, if it can’t, it should stop creating false expectations.

PS. 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”

PS. Here are some tweets on this thorny issue.

Expropriate it! 

How can we, the 99.99%, in order avoid suffering the tragic consequences of any awful leveling events, coexist in a friendly and mutually beneficial way with the extremely wealthy 0.01%?

Edoardo Campanella reviews five books debating “the growing wealth gap between a narrow upper class and the rest of the human population” that which he argues may be the greatest economic challenge of our time. “Inequality and the Coming Storm” Project Syndicate, December 8. 

The books reviewed are: The Great Leveler, by Stanford University historian Walter Scheidel; Global Inequality, by CUNY economist Branko Milanovic; The Vanishing Middle Class, by MIT economist Peter Temin; The Broken Ladder, by University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill psychologist Keith Payne; and Plutocrats, by the former journalist and current Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs Chrystia Freeland.

There are many origins of that wealth that feeds inequality, some abominable and odious, like crime and corruption, other, like Chrystia Freeland writes, “built their fortunes through hard work, talent, and discipline. But, once that wealth has been created, it can be destroyed by what Walter Scheidel calls the “Four Horsemen of Leveling”, exemplified by “the twentieth-century world wars, the Russian and Chinese Revolutions, the fall of the Roman Empire, and the Black Death, respectively. 

Surely the consequences of such horrendous levelers, especially for the much more numerous poor, cannot justify us ever wanting to get rid of inequalities that way… that is except if we have a need of a schadenfreude with masochistic characteristics. 

When Scheidel argues, “all societies eventually reach the level of inequality they can tolerate. Once this pain threshold is breached… Only carnage, chaos, and destruction can restore fairness in the system… extreme inequality yields only to extreme equalizers” our first and only concern should be, how on earth can we learn to live well and prosper in a world of runaway inequalities? 

Campanella, seemingly agreeing on that goal writes: “What can be done? Many commentators recommend improving the availability and quality of public education. Others have proposed more effective ways to tax wealth, such as a global tax on capital income, higher marginal tax rates, more aggressive estate taxes, or even a tax on robots. And still others are calling for a universal basic income (UBI).”

But Campanella is no optimist… “none of these will be a panacea. Educational policies take years to gain traction; taxing the global super-rich would require a level of international cooperation that does not exist today; and a UBI is simply unaffordable for most – if not all – governments.”

I instead, hopefully since I see no other remedy, think we do have a chance to coexist in a friendly and mutually beneficially manner with the unbelievable wealthy. But for that to happen there are some requisites:

1. We appreciate what inequality might produce. For instance when Campanella writes “Most of the great temples, royal palaces, pyramids, castles, and other monuments of history are the lasting evidence of past wealth disparities”, we should immediately ask ourselves whether those monuments would have existed at all without rampant inequality and, if our answer is no, would the world have been a better world for all of us? 

In this respect I had a wake up experience a couple of years ago when reflecting on a beautiful richly adorned but totally useless shield at the Museum of Louvre, it dawned upon me that most of it would not exist were it not for immense inequality. I suspect that Thomas Piketty, as a Frenchman, would not want to have sacrificed Louvre either, in the name of some unknown equality…we know the inequality we have.

2. We begin to understand that much of the wealth that exists cannot just be redistributed without the possibility of serious unexpected consequences. For instance what harm can it do that one person has now decided to freeze on a wall, with a sort of voluntary tax, US$450 million of his main-street purchase capacity, in Leonardo da Vinci’s Salvator Mundi? If anything we should go after those who got the US$450 million and see what they do with it… and if they pay their taxes. Those US$450 million on the wall should also help to raise expectations about the value of art, which might lead to some thousands of painters getting a dollar or more for their paintings, something which though it might not decrease inequality much, would in general be very good. (Disclosure, my daughter is an art consultant J)

3. We fully comprehend that all that wealth that, if it were ours, would surely help us to solve many of our daily problems, does not really guarantee its current owners one iota more of happiness.

4. We fight against all that hinders opportunities, like the risk weighted capital requirements for banks with which regulators have basically decreed inequality. In the same vein we need to combat all criminal or unproductive accumulation of wealth, like that obtained by means of corruption or the excessive exploitation of monopoly elements. 

5. And finally (especially as a Venezuelan) we have to fight tooth and nail against all the redistribution profiteers, those who instigate envy and class hatred only in order become themselves the neo-Plutocrats.

PS. And though for much more than reducing inequality, I do believe in a Universal Basic Income.

Could this be a theme that for some strange reason TED Talks does not like me to talk about?

How long should we allow bank regulators, like the Basel Committee for Banking Supervision and the Financial Stability Board, to feed us their dangerous and hubris filled besserwisser bullshit?

How can any system that makes it easier for those who already have it easier to access bank credit, and harder for those who already find that harder be defined as a “fairer financial system”? https://subprimeregulations.blogspot.com/2016/03/decreed-inequality.html

How can any system that risk weights with 20% the so dangerous AAA rated, and with 150% the so innocous below BB- rated, be defined as a system that fosters financial stability? https://subprimeregulations.blogspot.com/2017/07/what-if-traffic-regulators-to-make-your.html

How can any regulator who does not care about the purpose of what he is regulating hold that he knows what he is doing? “A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are for”, John A Shedd https://subprimeregulations.blogspot.com/2015/12/our-current-bank-regulatory-tragedy.html

How can any regulator allowing banks to leverage their equity different with different assets and not understanding or caring about how that distorts the allocation of bank credit to the real economy, hold that he knows what he is doing? http://perkurowski.blogspot.com/2016/04/here-are-17-reasons-for-why-i-believe.html

How many more houses built because its financing is risk weighted 35%, will have its basements occupied by unemployed children, because the risk weight for unrated SMEs and entrepreneurs is 100%? https://subprimeregulations.blogspot.com/2017/11/crimes-against-humanity-can-also-be.html

Is freezing at Christies US$ 450 million in purchasing capacity in Leonardo Da Vinci’s Salvator Mundi something good or something bad?

Clearly Leonardo da Vinci has to personally, from above, be extending his deepest gratitude to Janet Yellen of the Federal Reserve and Mario Draghi of the European Central Bank. Had it not been for their quantitative easing (QEs) and ultra low interest rates, he would never ever have seen his Salvator Mundi valued, so soon, at an incredible US$ 450 million.

Of course the wealth redistribution profiteers will scream bloody murder. The US$ 450 millions is like a voluntary tax that has escaped their franchise. 

The real question though is: Was the freezing of US$ 450 million in purchasing capacity in a painting (or in a storage room), like with a sort of voluntary tax, something good, or something bad. If bad how do you reverse it without other negative unexpected consequences?

But, for the time being, what is much more interesting is what are the vendors to do with US$ 450 millions in cash?

“The inevitable climate solution” also helps to face structural unemployment, economic growth, and inequality

George P. Shultz and Lawrence Summers sign up completely on a revenue neutral carbon tax proposed by the Climate Leadership Council. “The inevitable climate solution” Washington Post, June 20.

Indeed a carbon tax which revenues are equally redistributed to all is the way of how to align the market signal that will help to face the current environmental challenges, the current concerns about inequality, the current proposals of a universal basic income to face growing structural unemployment, and the current concerns about the lack of sustainable economic growth.

So please, even if this could make Trump to become a greater green hero than Al Gore, swallow it, for the best of our young.

http://ourpiedaterre.blogspot.com/2017/04/solutions-that-share-out-all-benefits.html

@PerKurowski​

That we suffer under the thumb of neoliberalism is mostly a self-serving myth created by statism fans.

In its simplest form neoliberalism represents a belief in that free markets will do better for all, or at least for most, than government with its central planning. 

So many failures have been attributed to neoliberalism and its bad intents that it takes too long to explain them all. In this respect I will here refer briefly to only two aspects that have been sold as neoliberalism, but that in reality are quite far from it, namely financial deregulation and privatizations.

Bank regulations: In 1988 the Basel Committee for Banking Supervision, for the purpose of setting the capital requirements for banks, decided that the risk weight of the Sovereign, meaning the central government was 0%, while that of We the People was 100%. That meant banks would be allowed to leverage more their equity when lending to the public sector than when lending to the private sector; which meant banks could earn higher expected risk adjusted returns on equity when lending to the public sector than when lending to the private sector; which meant banks would lend more to the public sector than to the private sector; which de facto meant that regulators believed the public sector could make better use of bank credit than the private sector. 

That principle is still well and alive today. How it has anything to do with neoliberalism, with financial deregulation and not with financial missregulation, is beyond my comprehension.

For instance those who attribute the financial meltdown of 2007‑8 to neoliberalism must ignore completely the decisive role that bank regulations played in distorting the allocation of credit to the real economy. It suffices to understand the definite role regulations played in the subprime mess and in the excessive lending for instance to Greece. Those regulations basically decreed inequality.

Privatization: Many or perhaps most of the privatizations of public services were allocated, not to those who offered to provide those services in the cheapest and best way, but to those who offered to pay the government the most for the rights. That in all essence signified the government collecting taxes in advance, leaving the citizens to repay these by mean of higher tariffs. How that has anything to do with neoliberalism, is beyond my comprehension.

Why have so many swallowed the myth of neoliberalism? One reason is that the world has too uncritically accepted using the term of crony capitalism, when most of the deviations it suffers are the direct consequence of crony statism.

Canada: A Universal Basic Income, should never be more than a step-ladder to help reach up to the real economy.

Had Venezuela’s oil revenues over the last 15 years been distributed directly to the Venezuelans by means of a (in this case a variable) Universal Basic Income (UBI), instead of by redistribution profiteers, the poorest of my homeland would have received at least six times more of it, and the country would not be so close to being a totally failed state.

Be sure, the best way to increase the efficiency of our citizen-to-citizen solidarity, everywhere, is to avoid the redistribution profiteers’ tolls.

I am not a Canadian but I have two Canadian granddaughters, and so I have a vested interest in Canada’s future. I firmly believe that a UBI is a very important tool in order to meet many actual and future social and economic challenges.

But the number one objection to a UBI, and which your local redistribution profiteers will try to argue in order to keep their franchise, is that it could reduce the willingness for work.

In this respect, and referring to Andre Picard’s “Basic income is not just about work, it’s about health” Globe and Mail, November 8, I believe that the UBI to be tested, should not be set as is proposed as 75% of low income measure before tax (LIM-BT), $1,320, but as a percentage of the salary you could obtain working, for instance 60% at the minimum salary level. As I calculate it, that would yield $1,100.

For me the biggest benefit of UBI is as a step-ladder that facilitates reaching up to that gig-economy that seems to have arrived as a fixed feature. We do need worthy and decent unemployments.

UBI should never be seen as lifting anyone out of poverty but allowing millions to lift themselves out of poverty.

UBI has much less to do with human rights, "doing good", than with an intelligent society organizing itself for challenging times, "doing smart".

UBI should always be a beautiful citizens to citizens affair. At no moment should it be soiled by referring to it as a government handout. 

Of course UBI has to be funded with real money, no cheating paying it with inflation or public debt. Besides natural savings in the redistribution costs, one interesting alternative is the use of revenues from high carbon taxes. That would align the incentives between the fights for a better environment and against inequality.

PS. Joking but not really joking: Perhaps a payroll tax on robots and driverless cars could also be used as funding mechanism; that would also help us humans workers to be able to compete on a more level playing field.

http://perkurowski.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-wealthy-and-poor-should-all-be.html

http://perkurowski.blogspot.com/2016/10/how-to-start-discussions-and.html

So much in the world, like art, to become a reality, has required tremendous doses of inequality.

Walking around the museum Louvre in Paris I suddenly saw an amazingly decorated silk embroidered full with gold filaments shield, made around 1555-1560 by Pierre Reddon for King Charles IX.

https://collections.louvre.fr/en/ark:/53355/cl010117233

I then asked myself who in his sane mind would request this type of absolutely useless shield? Clearly it had to be someone extremely wealthy and powerful, someone who did not care one iota about his own security being threaten on a close range, or about its enormous costs.

In that moment it suddenly dawned on me that basically nothing of what I was seeing at the museum would exist, if it had to be produced by a society where income and wealth was equally distributed. In other words, all this art around me, to have become a reality, has actually required a very unequal society. 

In other words, shhh... between you and me...the museum of Louvre is, unwittingly, a homage to inequality.

So are all those of us who with good intentions are fighting for a more equal society truly aware of what we could be giving up, of all unexpected consequences, if we were too successful?

I then tweeted: What would Thomas Piketty’s France exhibit at Louvre, had not huge societal inequality allowed the financing of so much "unnecessary" art?

Then of course you find cases like Vincent Van Gogh who did not require much inequality to give us his marvels, much more of a loving brother.

PS. That’s not only at Louvre just go to the BritishMuseum.

PS. Without inequality the world would never ever have been able to see a Fabergé egg.

Would that have been a better world? I don’t know. You tell me! At least we would not have to envy that some got more impressive burial gaskets than us.

PS. Redistributing wealth is not as straightforward as redistribution profiteers want us to think.

PS. Where would Florence be without the Medicis?

Ideas on how to start discussions and implementation of a Universal Basic Income, or Societal Dividend

We must all be aware that the Redistribution Profiteers will be out on force trying to confuse the discussions on Universal Basic Income. 

Therefore I believe some very few principles needs to be established and firmly held on to.

First that we are always talking about a “basic” universal income that in no way should reduce the incentive of people to try earn some additional income. In essence it could initially be argued as a complement to the gig economy.

The UBI should start to be tested in low amounts that are slowly moved upward in line with the experiences.

It should be clear from the very start that all UBI needs to be funded with real money… no funny inflationary money. Initially it should be funded exclusively with taxes already collected; although special taxes like on pollution could also be useful to align UBI with other important objectives.

From the very beginning we need to identify who could provide the payment services in the cheapest way possible. 

And then of course it needs to be clear that UBI is NOT a government handout. It is a societal dividend decreed by all the shareholders, all the citizens.

http://perkurowski.blogspot.fr/2016/04/the-wealthy-and-poor-should-all-be.html

PS. Since corporate taxes only dilute citizen's representation, all such revenues should help to fund a Universal Basic Income.

The solutions I offer are ignored. Might it be because these provide too little business to expertize and redistribution profiteers?

Before the 2007-08 crisis there was some economic growth resulting from a big expansion of credit, which was fed by some very low capital requirements to banks and that allowed these to, in some cases, leverage their equity over 50 to 1.

Then disaster struck, as a consequence of excessive exposures to what had very little capital requirements, like loans to sovereigns (Greece), investments in AAA rated securities and the financing of houses. 

In panic, floods of money, for instance by means of QEs, were poured over the economies, with little results to show for it, and now, the most important world economies, are stuck. Any additional stimuli, be it by means of public borrowing for infrastructure projects, QEs or low or negative interest rates will only complicate matters much more... like for pension plans.

The truth is that trying to get strong and sustainable economic growth, while keeping in place credit risk-adverse capital requirements for banks that exclude SMEs and entrepreneurs from fair access to bank credit, is just impossible.

What to do?

1. Very carefully remove the risk-weighted capital requirements for banks that distort the allocation of bank credit to the real economy. In order to make sure banks have sufficient capital while adapting, and that credit is not constrained, central banks could offer to purchase some of their bad portfolios, with the understanding that no dividends would be paid until these portfolios had been repurchased by the banks. (See what Chile did)

2. Create new demand (and lessen inequalities), by means of 100% tax-funded Universal Basic Income schemes. One of these could, if funded with carbon taxes, also help with environmental sustainability.

I have been arguing against the risk weighted capital requirements for banks for soon two decades, and I have explained many of its mistakes over and over again. I have yet not been able to obtain one single answer from those responsible, like from the Basel Committee or the Financial Stability Board. Could it be because they have no answers? 

Or could it be that my counter proposals are too straightforward, to simple, and would therefore erode the earnings potential of bank regulators (and consultants), of climate change and inequality fighters, and of the general expertize and redistribution profiteers?

Or is it that I just don’t know what I am talking about? It could be, though I think I can prove I do know by means of somecertifiable early opinions on these issues.