Monthly Archives: March 2021

Open AI announces the Roboeconomy as it is part of the MakeEverythingMachine

Join our supporters! and Check our twitter account

I am an AI graduate of the year 2000. Computers then where not capable of doing interesting things, although I worked on the prediction of stock prices in the US and even visited Reuters at the World Trade Center. This knowledge however informed me that robots will eventually be able to do everything, including desiging better robots. The combination with renewables creates a world in which technology can exist on the same basis as all life, solar energy, raw materials. Humans are tool users so we will use technology that can run ‘forever’ on solar energy (and other sorts of renewables) to make our lives easier, allow us to enjoy our days under the sun.

Two things need to happen though, the local minium of fossil fuels needs to be escaped hopefully before the damage is unrepairable, which also requires a sizeable renewable capacity, because damage to the coherence of society is the biggest risk, and without energy you can’t stabilize a society or secure it. The other thing is that banks need to let go of their power, because they maximize an suboptimal indicator : cashflow. It is what got us 100 years of progress without any real security from a fossil fuel calamity. The dependency on fossil fuels generates massive amounts of cashflow. Banks clinging on to control are the major reason for the shift to the right in our societies. Banks pay for the measures that cause unrest, banks pay for the media bias to show right wing attitudes, bansk cause all problems because they profit of them!

Now OpenIA researcher Sam Altman puts a number on it. He says :

Artificial Intelligence will generate enough wealth to pay each adult $13,500 a year

Its really not necessary to say 13,500 or any other number. If anything such a number means you are trying to occupy a niche in the existing economy, but that existing economy will 1. go away 2. does not like such niches or it would have created them already.

As the pace of development accelerates, AI “will create phenomenal wealth” but at the same time the price of labor “will fall towards zero,” Altman said. 

The above combined with renewables have been a concept we have written about for more than 10 years now, and its the basis of the Roboeconomy, the question how to deal with it as Altman wonders. The question we asked as a basis for our thinking about the Roboeconomy was this:

If you had a machine that made everything everyone needed, running on renewables (so without cost to anyone, we call it the makeeverythingmachine), would :

Option 1. Everyone be out of a job, not earning any cash and not be able to aford anything the machine made and die from hunger


Option 2. Would everything be free and would people have a basic income to signal their preference for certain products over others (without ever going needy).

The current banking system tells us it has to be option. 1 mainly because they live of of credit and debt, but also because most machines use fossil energy (directly or indirectly) and this energy has owners and those owners want to a share of whatever you make (in the form of payment). It is a share of the produce because no matter what you make, you can never pay them back the oil, coal or gas they gave you, and money is just a means of exchange, not an actual valuable resource.

Altman argues for a shift in the way taxes are payed..

In this future, where wealth will come from companies and land, governments should tax capital, not labor, and those taxes should be distributed to citizens, Altman said.

How about no taxes mr. Altman. Why would a government tax? To pay its bills and public services. Will those bills exist? Not if we do things right. Of course today our government is in debt and pays to private banks. This entanglement is artifical and needs to be ended, as you can read above and as I maintain in this blog, fossil credit debt can =NOT= be repayed. When we replace fossil with renewables we now have to make an effort to keep those energy sources going, we need plants to recycle and create new panels based on renewables.

The cost of that process can be reduced by automation and use of robots, and by paying the labour with renewable energy credit which flows from the sources. This is identical as a farmer working his land for the community but also living off its produce. Renewables make land mean the same thing to machines as it means to people.

Altman proposes to tax big companies with a big societal impact shares to be distributed amongst the citizen. This is every republicans nightmare and there’s a word for it “Socialization”. They hate it because republicans feel they have worked hard for what they have, while they in fact only fought hard for it with other republicans (even when starting and growing a company) in a scarcity context created by banks.

The mistake many will make is to think in the current (fossil credit) economic context. Banks do nothing for our economy, it is just the dependency on fossil fuels of all parties that forces them to part with goods and services for our currencies. This will stop as soon as renewables make everything cheaper and allow production to be local and owned by the consumers. Banks will simply go away, including their insane military support system. That or chaos from a world war caused by an attempt of the economic system to remain relevant.

Paying the shares to the citizen will not do any good, because the fundamental scarcity is not releaved. The shares need to be permanently tied to a citizen’s identity. But this still won’t work because banks will push and pull on companies to drive them further into debt. This is because banks want to ultimately own anything of value in society.

If the money people earn from the shares they own is divident it would mean money would circulate back to the companies, but not all. There could be no fossil fuel companies in the mix because those would absorb the majority of the money. Some companies would earn more than others. It seems to do anything with the current system you’d have to really think it though, all the while fighting accusations of socialism which just won’t fly in the USA. “You won’t take my company” I can see the US flags and marches already.

A Unit of Climate Progress

Join our supporters! and Check our twitter account

Many sides are pitted against each other in the world economy, a situation that is actively encouraged by banks that sell loans to all sides. We all stuggle to pay rent and earn a living, and we should ask ourselves why. It is because progress is measured in profit and in existence of companies. That is not a valid measure, becaus companies can exist for a century, such as Shell Oil, and increased global vulnerability of humanity to an unimaginable extent.

If the oil supply stops, because for instance a shortage develops due to a big container ship clogging the Suez canal (speaking hypothetically of course) all activities grind to a halt. We can’t make oil in our back yard or conjure it up in our garden sheds. Entire industrial zones will grind to a halt and nobody in entire countries can make the stuff we have been manouvred into all needing.

How do we know if a company is any use to us in a real sense? Clearly the measure of how much money it makes is not enough, or in fact misleading. The more money it makes the less money people have to spend. So what would be a real indicator, parameter for gauging the performance of a company? Happiness is not a good indicator, because a shot of heroin will make you very happy. Sugar, Fat, Walt Disney etc. can put us or return us in a state where we feel in control and unthreatened yet entertained. A happy place. This kind of happy is what our economy is after by virtualizing almost everything to the point that people now see million dollars of value in digital trinkets (NFTs).

It has to go back to the complete human, or techology will find a way to please part of the human (his brain) to the depriment to the other parts (his fitness). The economy is not looking at the right number and won’t tell us more entire alert human beings are living healthy lives if the GDP is growing. Usually it is LESS.

Lets take as a measure the number of Healthy Satisfied Human Days, where we take as healthy the kind of human you get when he/she can socialize, excersize or work, not grow fat or develop diabetes. Its not easy but this could be a start. So HSHD per year produced by a company. To make it a bit more challenging the HSHD must be estimated over the next 100 years (CHSHD, a centuries worth). This works by calculating the effect of the existence of the company on the remaining resources. Also environmental trends will be taken into account. Maybe it should be a seprate thing where you take HSHD and look at how a company affects them.

If we take the present world we must conclude that total CHSHD is less than the total of CHD or next Century Human Days. Many humans will be unsatisfied and unhealthy on many days in the next century. The measure thus talks about how the company is changing that.

Coca Cola makes children and adults obese, they develop diabetes. Many of the lives it touches will be un healthy. Coca Cola will make some people happy, even unhealthy people already suffering from the effects of high blood sugar. That is why health is a superior measure compared to happiness. In the USA many people don’t pass the health bar at all. That country has a serious CHD deficit already.

If you grow cows in Holland with soj beans from the Amazon, and indians get killed because loggers want their land, the company that ultimately sells the meat is not doing a lot for humanity, not counting the risk of spreading diseases and health problems associated with meat consumption. Of course you have to look at the entire system from seed to meat. Quite often companies split up because they would look bad as one, a method of obfuscation well known to the tax office. What about the relationships between the management of dutch nature and biomass burning powerplants? You see them if you look at the money, and they would not schore high on a CHD scale, let alone a CHSHD scale..

What to do with companies that either ruin lives or add little at all. We all work to be happy, safe, healthy human beings, so we should have no problem being a problem to companies that take that away from us. Its not ‘they’ who suffer, it is you. If water is depleted and poisoned by datacenters it hurts you, and if the emissions warm the planet and destroy agriculture, it hurts you even if it only means people start to migrate away from dry places or wars over water.

Of course many of us always looked at the impact companies had on people, which is why climate change became a thing and Shell became a problem for them. They cared about human life in general, not only their own (mostly). Time to quanitfy it so it is clear this is a sensible and probably generally supported way to look at companies. Talk about jobs is exactly for the people that don’t look beyond their income and their own front lawn.

Let this post try to collect measures as proposed, of human quality of life in the real world.. to be continued..

The Climate Fight United by a Coin

Join our supporters! and Check our twitter account

Money cration is monopolized by private banks, but that is slowely changing. In Europe and the US crypto coins are now usable as a currency just like any other we know. The potential of this situation is not yet fully understood by many, who focus on the speculative value of crypto coins.

But currency, coins have had multiple purposes in history. They have been used to delay true reward, as I-Owe-You’s (this is how the paper dollar came into existence). Another function has been to organize labour where the time at which labour was needed or the effort returned would make it impossible for people to be sure the burden was shared equally. By using a token, coin or currency people knew that although they’d be working for 10 tokens now, they could make others do the same for those tokens later.

The people that have a solid sense of urgency around climate change are not wrong. If you know that our atmosphere is 16 km high, and trees only go up about 30 meters on average, you may wonder how we are going to get the CO2 out of the air about the trees. The answer is : We probably won’t. The trick is to NOT put CO2 into the atmosphere, soon enough it will diffuse out of our reach. We are stuck with instability of jet streams. Snap colds and heat waves. Shell did it. We need to fight it now.

In our way we find the economy, a giant complex network of activity rewarded by money delivered like a constant blood infusion to the system by banks. The money ends up in savings accounts, or gets spend along the production chain, on raw materials, raw labour, and most importantly, fossil fuels. Banks don’t want that system to stop, they live of it. They want us to keep coming back for new money to buy gasoline. They are in cahoots with the fossil energy sector. Economics is their marketing myth.

Lets think outside of this box for a second. Let’s not be caught by the idea the only way to access anything is by paying for it in todays’ Euro’s and Dollars etc. Banks want that to be your reality, after all that gives them more business. Let’s assume we do things differently. We create a climate coin, which has the value of 1 Euro in Europe. And we use that to replace our Euro’s while using those Euro’s to spend on renewable energy sources. We can then buy the energy of those sources with the coin. Because the energy sources deliver about 5-10 times the value invested over their lifetime, the Climatecoin system earns money which it can reinvest in renewable energy sources.

When we look at organic farming and forestry activities we can use the climate coin as a direct reward for time invested by people. This is because there is very little fossil input in planting trees. Set up properly a project to plant a forest can be very low in terms of energy requirements. This is great. The value of the project may never materialize (if we want to sequester CO2). It may materialize, but then the coin will gain value. Easier still would be harvests of low fossil input animal fodder (although we would like to see more vegetarians). Wildlife is a crapshoot in Holland now but one could think of rewildereing areas outside Holland. The coins would simply be backed by the value of all those assets, which of course would be greater than the investment in the coin!

Another way to back the coin would be by uniting behind a plan to make the coin equivalent to the Euro at a certain date, say januari first 2030. All those invested in it will be active in politics to bring about a law that makes the coin 100% valid and guaranteed by Euro’s in 2030. Maybe the early investors will recieve a tax break or bonus. Maybe some other incentive structure can be added. This is up for debate amongst users of the coin. This could mobilize many people to use it, and thus accelerate action against climate change waay faster than the bank controlled and restricted market.

I propose, a climate coin to unite all climate action in the EU and direct funds to projects rated at their energy return value and importance to the transition to renewables. If you want to be part of this project let me know at with title

Why Banks Should Suffer From Corona Crisis

Join our supporters! and Check our twitter account

You don’t hear much about banks falling over due to the economic slump caused by Corona. That’s because central banks are keeping them liquid. The ECB has doled out more than 1500 Billion Euro in 2020 without anyone noticing. Meanwhile everyone has to continue to pay they rentand mortgage, even if they have zero income because their shop has to close.

Now in Holland we get the second round of bank handouts. How will this work? Well the government considers compensating companies for 100% of their running costs. What are those? Rent and mortgages, loans and credit cost. Who is covered by this? The banks who keep expecting them as if its business as usual. This way you can see banks got secured directly, and now they are going to be secured indirectly.

Now what would the world be like if this support did not exist. If banks really only had their own capital (money) to live of. We separate the money in personal bank accounts, there is no relationship between the credit or mortgage market and those funds, even if it is a popular myth. Besides, personal funds are covered by the govenment.

What if banks could just fail because the payments would cascade all the way back to the ECB (where they get their money) and the ECB did not effectively paused all banks obligations to it by handing out cosmic amounts of cash? Bankers will tell you it would be chaos (because we are all afraid of chaos). Something would definitely happen. Right now we’re all holding our breath under water waiting for a tap on our shoulder to tell us we can come back up again, but what if that tap never came?

If banks did not have any security they would first stop asking for money from whoever owes them, rather than allow people to default on their debts. The 2008 crisis showed that defaulting is not the end of the world, in fact there it was a matter of handing over the keys to a place you could no longer afford anyway. Banks really can wait. Your motrgage probably runs for 30 years so who cares if its 32? This is what should have happened right away. The government and the banks however want you to keep believing that a little girl will go hungry if you don’t pay what they are owed.

If banks themselves where treated like home owners and the ECB would not be super supportive they would fall over. A bankrupt bank can be bought along with its debts. Then you would still owe the money but to someone else. Its a strange thing because actually the bank took a risk in borrowing to you, and they made a wrong call. It is pretty weird they appear completely insured against a bold out of heaven like Covid.

But if the support would not be there now would be a time of great opportunity, home prices would crash, people would be selling them or they would be owned by banks who would be selling them. A lot of other stuff would come on the market to cover costs. This would be an socioeconomic crisis apart from a health crisis. It is already for many people, but NOT for banks! Why not have general mayhem, a general market reset to a level we can all afford?

It appears the only reason banks are exempt from any difficulty is that they are in control and they form an international government of sorts. You can call this a conspiracy theory but we all know right wing parties are lakeys, proposing the most rediculous laws that give advantage to banks. How does this work? Simple : Banks make the money, and we all need it. If we need it more and become more desperate, the last to be against that are the banks.

This is not a general rant against banks by the way, banking, is a usefull practice in large societies. What this has become a rant against is banks being there for banks and nobody else. But we know why that is, we have written about it a lot of times, its because banks are about to lose their power to renewable energy. Bear with me. The below is a simplification for your illumination.

What does money buy you? Stuff. How is stuff made? With machines. What do machines run on? Energy. So what does your money buy when it end up with producers? Energy! Fossil energy mostly, possibly nuclear energy. All fine as long as its not energy YOU can make. Because why would you need money then. Fossil energy is great because it gets destroyed, you need more money to buy more of it. That money flows over bank accounts, through banks, they are the reason for existence of banks. Renewable energy does not cause this money flow (even though it can and banks try everything to get ‘energy markets’ going). Every producer will own its own energy sources in the future, the price of energy will tend to zero across the globe.

Banks need you on a tight leash, you must need money, your renewable projects have to develop slowely, no chaos and market crashes where you try to find new methods to thrive. Just like prince of Saudi Arabia said “we don’t want high oil prices that make people think of alternatives”. Banks version is we don’t want people finding ways around us. Banks do not care about your or your future all the way to the ECB. We think it would be better if they did not have such support.