How To Solve The Big Tech Problem Without Violating Anyone's Rights

"Big Tech is the new Big Tobacco" is often bandied about these days.  And while that has a kernel of truth to it (a kernel the size of a cornfield, in fact), it is also used by authoritarian zealots with a very illiberal (and ageist) agenda.  Mandatory age verification, censorship, repealing Section 230, and other related illiberal restrictions would open up the door to many unintended consequences to privacy, cybersecurity, and civil rights and liberties in general.  Even those adults who don't support youth rights will eventually experience these consequences sooner or later.  Kafka, meet trap.  Pandora, meet box.  Albatross, meet neck.

And none of these things will actually solve the collective action problem of Big Tech and the "Social Dilemma".  But here are some things that will, in descending order of priority and effectiveness:

1. First and foremost, take a "Privacy First" approach as recommended by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).  Pass comprehensive data privacy legislation for all ages that, at a minimum, would ban surveillance advertising.
2. Audit the algorithms and internal research of the Big Tech giants, and make the results publicly available for all to see.  Sunlight is truly the best disinfectant. 
3. Require the strictest and safest privacy settings to be the default settings for all users of all ages, which can then be adjusted more liberally by the users themselves.  For example, "friends only" sharing and "no DMs enabled from people whom one does not follow" by default.  And allow the option to turn off all DMs completely as well.
4. Require or incentivize the use of various "architectural" safety features on all social media, such as various nudges, #OneClickSafer ("stop at two hops") to reduce the pitfalls of frictionless sharing, and increase the use of CAPTCHAs to root out the pervasive toxic bots.
5. If after doing that, We the People feel that we must still get stricter in terms of age, then don't make things any stricter than current California standards (i.e. CCPA and CAADCA).

The first two items on the list in particular would of course be vehemently opposed by Big Tech.  That's because their whole business model depends on creepy surveillance advertising and creepy algorithms, and thus incentivizing addiction for profit.  They would thus have to switch to the (gasp!) DuckDuckGo model if these items were done.  (Plays world's smallest violin)

For another, related collective action problem, what about the emerging idea of phone-free schools?  Fine, but to be fair, how about phone-free workplaces for all ages as well?  In both cases, it should ONLY apply while "on the clock", which for school would be best defined as being from the opening bell to the final bell of the day, as well as during any after-school detention time.  And of course, in both cases, there would have to be medical exemptions for students and employees who need such devices for real-time medical monitoring (glucose for diabetes, for example).  Surely productivity would increase so much as a result that we could easily shorten the standard workweek to 30-32 hours per week (8 hours for 4 days, or 6 hours for 5 days) with no loss in profits? 

We must remember that, at the end of the day, Big Tech is NOT our friend.  But neither are the illiberal control freak zealots.  These measures will actually make both sides quite angry indeed.  But truly that's a feature, not a bug.

Big Tech can go EFF off!

State Of The Planet Address 2024

It is now 2024, and this year the TSAP will not waste any time giving our annual State of the Planet Address as we do every year.  Yes, we know it is a bit of a downer to say the least.  So sit down, take off your rose-colored glasses, and read on:

Our planet is in grave danger, and has been for quite some time now.  We face several serious long term problems:  climate change, deforestation, desertification, loss of biodiversity, overharvesting, energy crises, and of course pollution of many kinds.  Polar ice caps are melting.  Rainforests have been shrinking by 50 acres per minute.  Numerous species are going extinct every year.  Soil is eroding rapidly.  Food shortages have occurred in several countries in recent years.  Weather has been getting crazier each year thanks to climate change.  We have had numerous and often record-breaking wildfires, floods followed by long periods of drought, and a "storm of the century" at least once a year for the past several years.   And it is only getting worse every year.  In fact, 2023 is now officially the hottest year on record.  Look no further than the three record-breaking storms in the past 20 years:  Katrina (2005, highest storm surge), Sandy (2012, largest diameter), and then Harvey (2017, a 1000-year flood, and overall worst hurricane on record), followed by Irma and Maria which devastated Puerto Rico, for a taste of the not-too-distant future.  And that was before Hurricane Michael devastated a rather large chunk of Florida.  And the wild weather continues to this day, with up to six-foot (!) snowfalls in parts of Upstate New York just over a year ago, record wildfires in Canada last summer, and record rainfall in parts of the Northeast USA last year as well.

None of this is an accident of course.  These problems are man-made, and their solutions must also begin and end with humans.  We cannot afford to sit idly by any longer, lest we face hell and high water in the not-too-distant future.  Our unsustainable scorched-earth policy towards the planet has to end.  Yesterday.

While we do not invoke the precautionary principle for all issues, we unequivocally do for the issue of climate change and any other environmental issues of comparable magnitude.  In fact, for something as dire as climate change, as of 2015 we now support a strong "no regrets" approach.  With no apologies to hardcore libertarians or paleoconservatives, in fact. We are not fazed one bit by the naysayers' pseudoscience as it does not really "debunk" the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming. The only serious debate is about how fast it will happen, and when the tipping point (or points) will occur. It is not a matter of if, but when. And the less precarious position is to assume it is a real and urgent problem. We need to reduce CO2 emissions to the point where the CO2 concentration is at or below 350 ppm, ASAP.  And it is currently at an unsustainably high level of 400+ ppm, and growing rapidly every year.

Given the latest IPCC report, which is truly nothing short of horrifying, the general consensus among climate scientists is that we have only at most 12 years left (now more like 11) to act radically before truly catastrophic climate change is a foregone conclusion.  And 2030 will be here before we know it.  

Now THAT is a national emergency!  And a global one, in fact.  Thus, a full-steam-ahead, Green New Deal 2.0 is LONG overdue.  We have already squandered over a whole decade since Copenhagen, and we cannot afford to squander even one more day, let alone another decade.

Solving the problem of climate change will also help to solve the other ecological crises we are facing, for they all ultimately have the same root causes, not least of which is our insatiable addiction to dirty energy.  However, there is a right way to solve it, and several wrong ways.  Technology is important, but it won't be decisive on its own (economics geeks may recall Jevons Paradox).  The real problem is the paradigm that our society has been following, and that system is based on wetiko, the parasite of the mind and cancer of the soul.  It often seems that the only difference between capitalism and cannibalism is the spelling.

The TSAP endorses the ideas embodied in Steve Stoft's new book Carbonomics, most notably a tax-and-dividend system that would tax carbon (i.e. fossil fuels) at the source, and give all Americans an equal share of the revenue generated from this tax.  (Note that our proposal to tax natural resources and pay out an Alaska-like citizen's dividend already includes this.)  Yes, prices for various things would undoubtedly rise due to this tax, all else being equal, but the dividend will allow Americans to pay for this increase. The average American would in fact break even, but those who (directly or indirectly) use less energy than average will effectively pay less tax, while the energy hogs will effectively be taxed more, as they should be. Thus it is certainly not a regressive tax, and may even be mildly progressive. This is both the simplest and most equitable way to reduce carbon emissions as well as other forms of pollution, not to mention waste of dwindling non-renewable resources. The real challenge is getting the feds to accept something that won't directly benefit them (in the short term).  Carbonomics also includes other good ideas, such as improving how fuel economy standards are done, and crafting a better verison of the Kyoto treaty.   

In addition to the ideas in Carbonomics, we also support several other measures to help us end our addiction to fossil fuels once and for all.  While our Great American Phase-Out plan would have phased out all fossil fuels by 2030 at the latest, via alternative energy, efficiency, and conservation, we unfortunately now see that as too ambitious in light of the disastrous "Net Zero" rollouts in the UK and Germany recently.  Another good idea to further the development of alternative energy would be the use of feed-in tariffs for renewable power sources. 

(We are now very behind schedule, so perhaps the best we could hope for is a phaseout by 2050, which may be too late.)

Of course, it is not enough to stop emitting carbon dioxide, we also need to remove the current excess levels of it from the atmosphere as well, as that stuff can otherwise linger for centuries and continue wreaking havoc on the climate.  We support ending net deforestation completely, planting a LOT more trees, and putting carbon back in the ground through carbon sequestration. One method is known as biochar, a type of charcoal made from plants that remove carbon dioxide from the air, that is subsequently buried. This is also an ancient method of soil fertilization and conservation, originally called terra preta.  It also helps preserve biodiversity.  Another crucial method would be regenerative organic farming, which also turns the soil into an effective carbon sink as well.  And we will most likely also need to employ higher-tech methods of sucking carbon out of the air as well.

We've said this before, and we'll say it again.  Our ultimate goal is 100% renewable energy by 2050, and as close as possible to that by 2030-2040, but we need to hedge our bets.  We can phase out fossil fuels, or we can phase out nuclear power, but we can't do both at the same time--and fossil fuels need to be phased out first, and quickly.  Nuclear is doing a pretty good job of phasing itself out as it is.  So let's not get rid of it prematurely.  

LENR (low energy nuclear reactors) and fusion power are also worth considering.

But the biggest elephant in the room (make that the elephant in the Volkswagen) is overpopulation.  It does not make for pleasant dinner conversation, but it must be addressed or else all other causes become lost causes in the long run. We absolutely need to have fewer kids, or nature will reduce our population for us, and the latter will NOT be pleasant to say the least. The TSAP believes in voluntarily reducing the total fertility rate (TFR) to 1.5-1.9 children per woman to do so, but let us be clear that we do NOT support draconian and/or coercive measures of population control (like China has used).  We believe that more liberty is the answer, not less.  In fact, the two most effective means of reducing the birthrate are poverty reduction and female empowerment.

Fortunately, America's TFR has recently dropped to a record low of about 1.6-1.7 with no indication of rising back above replacement rate in the near term.  And with the massive social and economic fallout from the pandemic and especially the lockdowns, the TFR may even drop further.  But clearly we cannot keep growing and growing, that's for sure (in fact, we need to shrink). And our insatiable addiction to economic growth (despite being decoupled from well-being) is also every bit as harmful as overpopulation as well, if not more so.  Growth for the sake of growth, the ideology of the cancer cell,  is clearly one of the most asinine obsessions our nation (and world) has ever had.  We clearly need to transition to a steady-state economy, most likely following a period of what Naomi Klein calls "selective degrowth" as well.  And to do that, we need a radical paradigm shift to happen yesterday.  Put another way, we need to leave room for Nature, lest Nature not leave room for us.  We have been warned, decades ago in fact.  Unfortunately, such warnings have largely fallen of deaf ears until very recently.

(NOTE:  The novel experimental gene therapies that self-identify as "vaccines" may be behind the drop in birthrates from 2021 to 2022, and if that is not reversible, is NOT really good news.  Time will tell.)

Yesterday is the time to jettison the Twin Big Lies that "everybody must work for a living" and "everybody must procreate".  Because doing so is the sine qua non of any realist plan to avert ecological catastrophe.

Last but not least, the TSAP now believes that as long as men remain in charge, we are all merely rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.  Let's face it, it ain't gonna be us fellas who will save the world, as the past 7000 years or so have shown.  We paved paradise and put up a parking lot, we created a desert and called it peace.  We devoured and suffocated our own empire, and our proverbial 15 minutes of fame is almost up.  Only when women finally take over and reclaim their rightful position as the new leaders of the free world--and they will--will there be any real permanent solution.

Bottom line: we need to take the environment much more seriously than we do now.  We ignore it at our own peril.  And while the current administration in DC clearly doesn't care, We the People must act nonetheless.  With no apologies to the deniosaurs or Big Oil, Big Gas, or Dirty Coal.

Oh, by the way, wanna hear a joke?  Peak Oil.  Not saying it won't happen, of course--it will eventually peak and decline at some point--but climate change kinda supersedes it.  While conventional oil most likely has already peaked, there is more than enough total oil (including unconventional) to deep-fry the Earth--and most of which needs to stay in the ground if we wish to avoid catastrophic climate change.  Fossil fuels are, after all, what Buckminster Fuller referred to as our planet's "energy savings account", which we need to wean ourselves off of and save just in case of a planetary emergency--and he first said this in 1941!

So quibble all you want, but the truth must be faced head-on.  Hindsight is 2020, and we have a planet to save.  So let's roll!

UPDATE:  We never thought we would ever have to say this, but the TSAP does NOT support a "climate lockdown" or any other type of lockdown for that matter.  It is at best a category error, and would do far more harm than good in the long run.  And of course it flies in the face of the basic principles of anything remotely resembling a free society.  So take that off the table now!

It should also go without saying, but we at the TSAP DO NOT support the WEF "Great Reset", social credit scoring, or a cashless society (aka CBDC) either.  Those are a totalitarian's dream come true, and our worst nightmare come true for the rest of us.  We believe that the answer is MORE liberty and democracy, not less.

Let the planetary healing begin!

DO NOT Abolish Cash!

There is an open conspiracy against cash these days, with the powers that be wanting to gradually, then suddenly, phase it out completely in favor of central bank digital currency (CBDC).  The push is particularly acute in the UK now, but if left unchecked it will come to a country near you, including the USA.

And here is why the powers that be really want to abolish cash, and also by definition why it must be opposed at all costs.  CBDC can be easily controlled directly by the oligarchs (the central banks, big banks, and their sycophantic lackeys in government), and thus are a totalitarian's dream come true.  Combine that with CCP-style social credit scoring and the ability to turn on and off one's account at will, and you have a recipe for full-blown dystopia.  

So DO NOT fall for it.  Seriously.  Keep using cash at least some of the time, as that is effectively KRYPTONITE to the oligarchy (and they know it is).

Time To "86" The Federal Tax Code

The federal tax code has become increasingly Byzantine in its complexity, and the very rich easily get away with paying next to nothing due to the loopholes that they themselves write into the code.  The TSAP believes it is best to overhaul it entirely. 

That's why any serious tax reform idea needs to begin with, "The Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is hereby repealed".  And then replace it with something much, much simpler and more efficient:

The Universal Exchange Tax (UET) is one potential thing to replace it with.  A tax of typically 0.1% or less on (practically) all electronic transactions, and only on the destination or deposit side.

Another similar idea is the Automated Payment Transaction Tax (APT), from Dr. Edgar Feige.  This one taxes both sides of each transaction, and posit a higher rate than the UET due to less optimistic assumptions about the tax base, among other subtle differences.

Another similar idea is the Automated Deposit Tax (ADT, aka the "Tiny Tax"), from Dr. William J. Hermann, Jr.  Formerly one of the largest supporters of the APT above, he later came up with an even simpler idea, that only taxes the deposits into financial institutions.  Given a smaller base, as "within account" transactions would not be taxed, the revenue neutral rate is expected to be around 1% to replace all federal taxes and 1.2% to replace all federal, state and local taxes.  A more optimistic assumption would of course put the tax base much higher, and thus put the tax rate even lower still.

Keep in mind that, unlike the UET and APT, the ADT (Tiny Tax) would be unlikely to result in any significant shrinkage of the theoretical tax base in practice, since most if not all of the predicted shrinkage in the former, would result from fewer high-frequency stock, bond, and derivative trades within accounts (which are far more sensitive to that).  That is, what the latter lacks somewhat in the relative size of the tax base, it largely or entirely makes up for in relative lack of shrinkage. And switching to any of the three of course removes all of the compliance costs, distortions, finagling, and deadweight losses from the status quo, resulting in significant savings right there.

All of the above are the logical conclusion of the "lowest possible rate on the broadest possible base" with the latter idea adding "with the least complexity" as well.  All of these taxes are also surprisingly progressive, since the rich transact disproportionately more money than the non-rich, thus they pay disproportionately more in practice.  And yet it is not a particularly heavy burden on anyone, rich, poor, or anyone in between for that matter.  In fact, it's equivalent to everyone getting a raise, we can still afford to have a robust social safety net (if not the entire progressive wish list), AND America still becomes a global tax haven nonetheless.

It's a win-win-win situation for everyone but the oligarchs at the top that benefit from the status quo at the expense of the rest of us, in other words.

Some plans aim for revenue neutrality, while others aim for a balanced budget or even a surplus.  But what if there was a way to make the concerns about balanced budgets completely obsolete and irrelevant?

PAGING DR. FIRESTONE!

Enter Dr. Joseph M. Firestone, a proponent of one flavor of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT).  He argues that Congress can simply pay off the entire fictitious "National Debt" in one fell swoop and simply create the money ad hoc to pay all of its expenses, without needing to raise revenue at all.  He calls it "Overt Congressional Financing" (OCF), and can be done by a simple Act of Congress and/or the Treasury minting a high value platinum coin (i.e. valued in the trillions).  As does Rodger Malcolm Mitchell (of Monetary Sovereignty fame) and Ellen Brown as well.

That's not to say that taxes are completely useless.  There in fact are a number of reasons for them.  They 1) create demand for the currency, 2) help control inflation to some extent as an automatic stabilizer, and 3) control the economy to one degree or another to encourage and discourage various things (also known as social engineering).  And they can also be used for less than lofty motives as well to rig the game for the oligarchy, of course.  But for a government that can issue it's own currency, like our own federal government (but unlike our state and local governments), simply raising revenue is NOT of them.

So how do we retain the desirable features of taxes without the drawbacks?  Pigouvian taxes, such as vice taxes and eco taxes, for example, can then be added (back) in after repealing the old outmoded tax code.  Ditto for perhaps a limited "rich-only" or "very rich-only" individual income tax like the sort that prevailed prior to World War II, or alternatively an excise tax on executive compensation (like Bernie Sanders advocates) exceeding a maximum pay ratio between executives and their average or lowest-paid employees, in order to reduce the yawning chasm of inequality these days.  And perhaps a "too big to fail" tax on any bank or corporation that is so large and interconnected that it poses the externalities of systemic risk as well.

So what are we waiting for?

UPDATE:  One mild criticism right off the bat is that jettisoning the income tax entirely would also inherently jettison the proven poverty-fighting Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit as well.  The answer?  Until we implement a Universal Basic Income (UBI), we can and should implement a "Reverse Payroll Tax" that tops up wages by matching wages in each paycheck dollar for dollar up to a point (say, the first $200 per week), which is actually much simpler than the EITC and CTC.  As for the criticism that tax-free municipal bonds will lose their luster in terms of investment incentives, and municipalities will suffer as a result, the Monetarily Sovereign federal government can simply provide more federal aid to municipalities so they don't have to borrow at high interest rates.  And regardless of what the feds do, municipalities and states can also set up their own public banks (like the famous Bank of North Dakota) as well and borrow money interest-free, of course.

UPDATE 2:  Even if the Tiny Tax is implemented, there is nothing to prohibit maintaining (and increasing and harmonizing) the SEC Fee on Wall Street transactions, if one wishes to implement a sort of "gaming tax" on speculation as well.  

Case Closed: Masks STILL Don't Work

(This is an updated repost of an article from February 2023, as we thought the reader might need a reminder now in light of current events involving mask zealots, so far only in select pockets.  The calendar says 2024, but these zealots make us feel like we are in a 2020-2021 time warp or something!)

We will say it louder, for the people in the back.

A major new gold standard Cochrane review study (in January 2023) has come to a conclusion that only the utterly brainwashed would consider at all shocking at this point:  Masks don't really work to stop the spread of respiratory viruses.  Never did, and never will.  Not even the vaunted N95.  Handwashing is likely modestly effective, but masks are basically a joke overall, and not a very funny one either.

This concurs with over a century of research that came out overwhelmingly in support of the anti-mask side of the debate.  In fact, by 1919 it was practically settled science that these devices aren't anywhere near what they were cracked up to be, a consensus which prevailed until March 2020.  Then the pandemic narrative took over and turned the science upside down for nearly three years straight, while any studies were to the contrary were systematically file-drawered for far longer than those supporting the narrative.  In fact, the original version of the 2023 Cochrane review was actually written in the spring of 2020, and came to the same conclusion, but was ignored.  And now the entire pandemic narrative has collapsed faster than formerly healthy young athletes on the field after being jabbed.

We recently noted how the ever-insightful Ian Miller has so thoroughly debunked, deboned, sliced, diced, and julienned the pro-mask arguments, and laid waste to their utterly scorched remains for good.  And be sure check out the excellent Fargo study from Josh Stevenson et al. about masks for kids as well, likely the very best one yet, with the very least biases or confounding.  Spoiler alert:  masks STILL don't work.  Not for kids, not for adults, not for no one.

Oh, and let's not forget the dreaded Foegen Effect as well.  And other harms as well, see here.  That literally makes masks WORSE than useless.  Jettison them!

To the anti-mask side:  you are now hereby overwhelmingly vindicated, and really always have been in fact.  You have literally passed the biggest functional IQ test in all of modern history.  To the pro-mask side:  we are still waiting for you to apologize.  Yesterday.  And to those who switched jerseys anytime after February 2022 (that is, only when it became socially acceptable to do so), you are fooling no one.

QED

UPDATE:  Some may pedantically point out that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", therefore "no one can really say" that masks don't work.  True, you cannot (definitively) prove a negative.  But given the totality of the research and real-world evidence, it would be slothful induction (if not magical thinking as well) to still believe that masks have any sort of net benefit at all. If they did have a net benefit, it would have been self-evident long ago.  We need to see the forest for the trees.

"But...but...they worked in Japan!" See here for a good debunking of that myth as well.

And in case the pro-masker zealots pathetically trot out the fatally flawed Boston school mask study in desperation, rest assured that Ian Miller has successfully laid waste to that one as well.  And so has the ever-insightful Emily Burns, as well as Dr. Tracy Beth Hoeg, one of the authors of the Fargo study. 

Oh, and another study found that masks in HOSPITALS make no difference to infection rates.  Thus, if they don't even work in hospitals with all of their universal multilayered precautionary measures, they simply don't work at all, period.

In any case, regardless of whatever utilitarian arguments one likes to use, it was never actually ethical to force masks on anyone against their will, period, even if there had turned out to be some sort of a modest but significant collective benefit (which there wasn't).  Only a full-blown Machiavellian or a public health technocrat (same difference) could argue otherwise. 

UPDATE 2:  A re-analysis of the infamous Boston mask study has now thoroughly debunked it.

UPDATE 3:  For more on the harms of masks, see here.

UPDATE 4:  And another school masking study can be found here as well, co-authored by the aforementioned Dr. Tracy Beth Hoeg.  Again, surprise surprise, masks STILL don't work.  Period. 

UPDATE 5:  And that's before we get into the toxins that can be emitted from some types of masks, including the vaunted N95.

UPDATE 6:  Pushback works.  Contrary to Carl Jung's famous saying, what you resist does NOT persist, as long as you resist enough.  DO NOT COMPLY!

UPDATE 7:  Looks like masks are even more harmful than we thought, especially for children. 

UPDATE 8:  Looks like masks most likely INCREASE the risk of infection.  Oops!  Maybe the "public health" establishment should have actually thought that one through before forcing them on We the People. 

UPDATE 9:  Looks like St. Louis reversed their mask mandate for city employees within a matter of HOURS.  Again, pushback works.  What you resist does NOT persist.  (Apologies to Carl Jung.)

UPDATE 10:  Again, even more evidence that masks are worse than useless.  Especially for children. 

And finally, see here about the ultimate success of one of the most anti-mask (and anti-lockdown) countries in the world, Sweden.  As a result, we think "Stockholm Syndrome" should really be called "Melbourne Syndrome", because #SwedenGotItRight.

(Mic drop)