1: Managing Science is not a numbers game
4788
More people in science does not necessarily mean better results: there is an equilibrium to find, a sweet spot.
There is a fundamental difference between technology, industry and science. In an industrial setting, production is mostly defined by how many units of production you have, and how much ressources are available for production. As long as input ressources are available, you can in theory scale production somewhat geometrically. Double the number of factories, double the output.
Science works differently. Historically groundbreaking scientific discoveries and theories have been made in times of small tight knit communities. The most famous example being the iconic photograph from the Fifth Solvay Conference in 1927, held in Brussels, often referred to as "the most intelligent photo of all time". All the great minds that defined modern physics from relativity to quantum mechanics fit in one single photograph.
In science, instruments are not the means of production, they are the tools used to assess theories. Doubling the money and the people does not imply doubling the output. Science is not about producing stuff it's about producing new ideas.
Science thrives when highly intelligent individuals, extremely passionate about a single topic, get to meet to exchange often and freely over a long period of time. A hyper focused kernel driven by a similar passion. Adding more people dilutes the potential of highly meaningful interactions. That's the first reason why more people can lead to less groundbreaking discoveries. Even if the constituents of that kernel exists, it can never crystallized and reach it's full potential. Too many people to talk to, too many papers to read and too many unaligned objectives.
This also promotes the apparition of dogmatism and "consensus thinking". When there are too many ideas to assess, it is tempting to go with what the majority thinks. However for science, freedom is more important than consensus. Consensus is a political tool used by human beings to govern themselves in matters of opinions. This is irrelevant to science because science is empirical. It doesn't matter how many people think something if it can be demonstrated to be false. Freedom of thought, on the other hand is the essential mechanism that keeps on generating new ideas and points of view. A necessary part of scientific development.
Share:
Managing Science is not a numbers game
copy:
https://bluwr.com/p/428164879
2: Wealth inequality as a question of Inflation and Taxation
4538
Wealth inequality has been periodically rising up at the forefront of political discussions since 2008: almost 20 years now. With the same seemingly smart analysis pointing out that wealth inequality results in social unrest, often terminating with the "solution" of taxing the rich. First of all, although it does seem that wealth inequality leads to social unrest today, it's not at all a historical fact, when historical societies with massive wealth inequality have persisted for centuries. This raises the question of political manipulation and instrumentalisation. It also points out to a material switch in the moral compass that occurred more than century ago. Fruit of a materialism Zeitgeist that colored of all the "isms" of the era: Capitalism, Marxisim, Socialism and Communism ideologies, etc.. . All raised materiality has a moral imperative. Above kindness, honesty, generosity, honor, and the rest of the set of virtues that humanity has recognized for ages.
When inflation rises the value of assets compared to money increases. It means that, as money devalues, if you own land, stocks, businesses, and things of the sort, you do not get to be richer, but you get to keep what you have. This is what is commonly referred to as "the transfer of wealth" to the richest. It's not a transfer at all, the word "transfer" suggests that wealth is being taken from the population at large and given to the richest. What is happening is that the asset of most people is "Money / Currency". This is a devaluating asset by design (the inflation rate set by central banks), and the more it devalues, the less it is worth compared to everything else.
Then there is taxation. Taxation disproportionately affects people who derive their income from good paying salaries. . When adding up all taxes indexed on their salaries and the indirect taxes, their tax burden can be over 60%. These are historically high numbers, nowhere near the taxation levels of asset owners, or the low salaries earners. It means they don't even get to keep half of what they made. These incredibly high numbers also hinder the capacity of the most productive members of the population to acquire assets, start businesses, and over all participate into the economy to their full extent.
In comparison, the lowest payed workers. However they are disproportionally affected by indirect taxation and consumption taxes (ex: VAT). That represent a higher percentage of their income.
The most direct solution to reducing wealth inequality, is not to make the richest poorer. It's to make everybody richer, and the shortest path to do that is to get rid of inflation, lower the tax burden on salaries and, have a very low or even no consumption tax. It seems obvious, let people keep most of what they make so that they attain higher levels of material wellbeing doing what they already do. And make sure that their savings do not lose value over time.
Share:
Wealth inequality as a question of Inflation and Taxation
copy:
https://bluwr.com/p/406030640
3: It not tariffs it's a cost on trade deficit.
7614
Trump tariffs are not traditional tariffs, because they are indexed on the US trade deficit. Historical, tariffs have usually been either as a way to protect internal markets, get revenue for the government by indirectly taxing the population or both. They have also been used as punitive measures.
A tariff is both a tax on outside goods, and a subsidy to the internal market. As such they are either seen as distorting the market, or a way to put a price on not been able to produce something internally.
However, this new form of tariffs tell a different story, they are blanket tariffs based on the general trade deficit that the US has with different countries. Which means they go up and down with the trade deficit, that alone makes them function differently. How they will impact the global market remains to be seen. From a strictly optimization (the mathematical discipline) perspective, the most likely outcome, after a period of instability, is a general lowering of US trade deficit, mirrored by a lowering of reciprocal tariffs leading to an increase in trade and GDP.
This of course does not take into account specific geopolitical sensitivities and the complexity of the potential readjusting in regulations, fiscal policies and otherwise that countries may have to do lower their trade deficit with us.
Share:
It not tariffs it's a cost on trade deficit.
copy:
https://bluwr.com/p/181861728
