Creativity Or War?

What’s the difference between the latest two crises? The most recent isn’t about overproduction, like the one in the 1930s, because the weight has shifted, through quantitative easing (QE) and private over-indebtedness.

On oversupply, prices decrease and everything becomes cheaper, including assets. But the QE stops the dropping of the latter’s prices. In the end, we see that if no available income and no middle class are created, there’s no end to the crisis.

People are enslaved or turned into robots by over-indebtedness (via QE) to no avail, if the prices of assets and resources is kept high. The rich will face problems in exerting the power they get from accumulated wealth. Why? Because profitable operations will be overrated. How? The capital owner wants to buy creativity, for which they pay a transfer price through the profit-wages mechanism, but instead they get corporate organization.

In other words, the society is built so that the financier takes the employee’s creativity. But modern slavery replaced it with clichés and marketing, in the context of standardization of work and repression of competition, within globalization.

The issues above can be also explained from another angle. Creativity is undermined by politics and becomes overrated because of tax barriers. Therefore, all the producers of consumer goods begin manufacturing in Communist China, at the same quality, invalidating the principle of “being too poor to buy cheap.”

But more importantly, what we call capitalism no longer stimulates performance. Because the underlaying principles of society are flawed. The world evolves on creativity, freedom and capital allocation on market criteria, not on ways to repress that.

The lead violin should be creativity, not organization. Creativity and freedom must be placed above discipline. Principles - above fines. Not like today, when we see the effect taking the place of cause. Politicians and corporations should not be the masters of individuals, and the invisible hand of market should not be replaced with a politicized one redistributing resources.

This kind of society is feudal, because it tries to preserve privileges by inheritance and it prevents the circulation of elites, as an effect of the limitation of the creation of a middle class, which feeds the elites.

Finally, if the European Union has not realized this yet, the Anglo-Americans have become aware that the world has grown too small to support all of us, thus extensive development solutions are needed.

Unfortunately, this is not clearly known today and - like in wartime - resources are getting concentrated to finance creativity, research, knowledge necessary for a technology leap based on fundamental science, not on information technology (IT) and marketing. The latter even loses any part in such a sequence.

People are living worse, they no longer afford buying assets at the current prices, they buy merchandise of poor quality; their life somehow got rationed. This is to get the leap, to use creativity to generate offer, not marketing to generate corporate clichés.

With the mention that if the required technological support does not become available, a brutal repression of demand will follow. In other words, if creativity doesn’t work, to allow sustaining mankind, an extinction will follow, sadly often equivalent to war.

Still, it’s not as bad they first try the former, despite experimenting for the last 25 years forms of state-corporate enslavement of the population that only kept us stagnating. This is what happened instead of stimulating the elites in every field, because they’re the only who bring scientific progress.

And because of the attempt to cultivate slavery instead of elites, the generations of this era have decayed educationally and were “herded” by ever weaker prime ministers and presidents; for it’s not by accident they say people have the rulers they deserve.

With a note for welfare state misunderstanding their role. Socialization should have been about education, to raise awareness, not about losses. And next to the uniforming of education there should have been a retake of property protection, to increase the individual confidence.

In the context of ever more frequent talk about changing the present form of globalization, I think it’s relevant to get closer to God as a way of natural configuration of atoms, unlike what happened so far, with IT playing the sorcerer’s apprentice.

Information technology, IT for short, has eroded education. And a large population is useless, if it went through education superficially or hardly at all.

This is why we need cultivating fundamental disciplines, not herding people with a whip to become depersonalized and lose their identity and creativity, when they what they need is more awareness.

Perhaps those who practice servitude by taxes or tariffs of utilities, to help politics, have not realized it yet, but this results in a regrowth of crime. By way of contrast, a globalization oriented towards promoting elites and natural hierarchies of values acts in the opposite direction.

Education is important also because scientist like late Stephen Hawking should become representative, not starlets of adult movies.

As I mentioned science, I’d like to point out that I found relevant the production of a material without atom-level memory: samarium nickelate. Forgetting is essential, because resilience generates patterns out of past wrong decisions. This is why we need forgetting: to give up bad patterns, clichés and the stress they continuously produce.

To return to the original ways of work, with the same freshness, while also using the accumulation along the way, we must eliminate stress such as the emotional pollution practiced in marketing. This is the key of quantum. Without frustration, it’s easy to move forward and make scientific progress.

I have written an article where I mentioned that the proportion of millionaires among Americans has incresed from 0.013% in 1990 to 1.5% today. After abandoning the gold standard and generally any form of monetary discipline, the number of millionaires has increased 400-fold, while population has grown only 4-fold.

I agree, indeed, that the gold standard will never return; so the question is, how many of the 1.5% do work of social relevance, like the 0.013% used to? Or, along the same line of thought, how many millionaires have something to do with marketing, and how many to work that allows the society a qualitative leap in terms of living standards? Or how many of them consolidate the division of labor to expand their customer base for future profits? Because if they don’t, and if their social role is not connected to true capitalism - the division of labor and the circulation of elites - then peoples’ money is extorted to preserve false elites.

And authentic elites are necessary for the leap, for the use of creativity to generate offer, not of marketing to generate corporate clichés. I’ll say that as many times as necessary: if the required technological support does not become available, a brutal repression of demand will follow. If creativity doesn’t work, to allow sustaining mankind at its current size, an extinction will follow, sadly often equivalent to war.

I mentioned the living standard; it’s worth observing that a growing world population is directly related - in the absence of barriers for investment - to the housing price growth, as the appetite for estate increases. This is why the real estate growth has to be compensated by cheaper consumer and durable goods, to preserve the living standard.

It’s hard to say if we’ll get there, but it’s worth seeing where we stand. This is why we should no longer rely on the idea of estate as both expenditure and investment, and include it instead in the consumer basket used to calculate inflation, especially in Romania, where homeowners are 90% of the population.

The basket includes, indeed, rent; a reason for which it’s worth mentioning that there are few homes for rent, and the weight of rental is low in the basket because grandparents, parents and children share the homes owned by the former.

It’s certain that the amortization of a purchased home or mortgage installments are not included. These are important as sources of information about the living standard and the inflation, because statistical indicators matter as long as they accurately reflect reality, and become irrelevant when used just to check yet another political “success.”

This standpoint explains why young people demand higher wages than their employers are willing to pay. Precisely because employers base their calculations on statistical data, and the employees - on what they perceive. It seems that a reconciliation of statistics and reality is mandatory for the employees and employers to use the same basis for their calculations.

One final “reason.” We see lately a proliferation of animal rights activists. If they want to get their work done, perhaps they should be accepted as religious, as it would make them feel better. We know that the Christianization of cannibal tribes, for instance, had excellent results.

On the other hand, artificial intelligence, despite its strong progress lately, has never touched the matter of freedom of faith. Other issues were approached, but not this one, which is an attribute of consciousness.

Considering the current events, it is perhaps the moment for debating these issues - the animals’ right to belief and the religious freedom of artificial intelligence. The debate would oppose two notions: hunger and conscience. What do we choose?