Laws of Power

I like books. Recently however I’ve particularly come to enjoy audiobooks. Many people regularly lose an hour of their day to travel between their home and their work. Some lose more. For that whole hour which I used to lose I now listen to someone more knowledgeable than me speak about something that I want to be educated in.

As is my custom I try to expose myself to things that I don’t know much about or people that offer viewpoints that differ from my own view. Sometimes I’ll listen to someone I’m familiar with, I’ve spruiked a few of those here before. Sometimes I just listen to something that grabs my attention. A book by Robert Greene entitled The 48 laws of Power was an example of a book like that.

Normally I put out content about every two weeks. This year I’m using every second post to write about someone or some organisation which is doing useful work. After imbibing The 48 Laws of Power however I’m just not in that headspace. My current headspace requires a cudgel.

I forced myself to sludge my way through Greene’s book and I can confidently say that it is truly terrible. I’m sure I’ve read worse but I’m genuinely struggling to recall what. I can think of one use for the material. Shaun Micallef could richly mine this work and deliver some truly cutting social satire.

The book is a series of ‘laws’ which the author seems convinced will help the reader to build their own power. Law four advises that you should always say less than necessary. Law six requires you to court attention at all cost. I’m not convinced that dressing ostentatiously whilst impersonating a mute will ‘build’ anything other than ridicule.

But that’s ok because law sixteen suggests that you should use absence to increase respect and honour. This fits perfectly with law twenty-five in which you are to re-create yourself. So I can confidently disappear from work, change into some normal clothes (still saying nothing) thus increasing the honour and respect I receive in the workplace. Perfect!

This plan will fit perfectly with law seventeen in which I should endeavour to keep others suspended in terror by cultivating an air of unpredictability. Surely no one would expect the silent guy in the purple poker-dot suit with the brown shoes and the green bowler hat to go home.

I’m confident that if I follow this tactic fairly soon I’ll have managed to tick off law twenty-seven in which I should play on people’s need to believe by creating a cult like following.  Who wouldn’t get behind a person in a purple suit who arrived looking ridiculous, says nothing, then leaves. I know who would get behind that person. Fucking no-one.

This book offers no actual evidence to support the authors ideas. It’s just a series of poorly though out ideas followed by some occasionally accurate historical anecdotes. As each law concludes, some classical music plays. The music was actually quite enjoyable. I could go on, but instead I’d like to focus on the very first of Green’s ’laws’

Never Outshine the Master

Always make those above you feel comfortably superior. In your desire to please or impress

them, do not go too far in displaying your talents or you might accomplish the opposite – inspire

fear and insecurity. Make your masters appear more brilliant than they are and you will attain

the heights of power.

This is truly awful advice. Consider for a moment that your direct superior may be more or less competent than you are. The best way to determine this is to provide them with you best work and see how they respond to that.

Sometimes your superior does respond with fear and insecurity. Occasionally what you have done simply goes straight over their head. In any case if your superior does respond with fear and insecurity you can be fairly confident that you know what you are dealing with.

Once you have established that you are working for someone who isn’t particularly competent you can then proceed with the only sensible option. Leave. Don’t waste your time slaving away for someone who doesn’t appreciate you and who is not able to advance your career? Simply leave.

But what if your superior responds well? Competent people rarely become insecure when they meet other competent people. Relief is usually the overriding emotion. Relief that they have found someone they can rely on. Someone that they will stay in contact with. Someone who they will look to when they move on. Someone who they might recommend for their position should they leave. Someone they might hire again if they move up themselves.

By not submitting your best work your robbing yourself of future allies. You’re also delaying the day when you might meet the person who might really help your career because you’re stuck working for someone who isn’t particularly competent. If you want to rise you have to shine.

The Son Of Zaky

Last Monday night Q&A host Tony Jones concluded the show with an announcement and a challenge. The announcement was that the Federal Leader of the Opposition is appearing on the show next week. The challenge was for the Prime Minister to join him on the show. Apparently Q&A is ready when the Prime Minister is.

When inviting participants to debate it’s considered reasonable to invite both parties at the same time. To do otherwise invites claims of bias. For this reason, the Prime Minister will likely decline Q&A’s invitation.

I would suggest that the national broadcaster should be more concerned than most about potential perceptions of bias. It frustrates me that taxpayer dollars which could be spent on additional health services or bolstering education are used to fund an organisation which seems at times committed to engaging in questionable behaviour.  

Why would the national broadcaster not simply challenge both leaders to an open air debate at the same time? Why would the national broadcaster engage in behaviour which almost guarantees they will be criticised? Why has the organisation not learnt from past mistakes?

I have written before about the ABC (1). It’s seems that both the Q&A program and the ABC organisation has learnt little from the Zaky Mullah incident. In addition to this latest piece of silliness Q&A continues to seed the audience with people such as the unfortunate Duncan Storrar who ask questions designed to provide a ‘gotcha’ moment.  

Mt Storrar rose to national prominence for a question he asked of Assistant Treasurer Kelly O’Dwyor. Mr Storrar asked why the government was lifting the tax free threshold for “rich people” (2).

It appears that Mr Storrar is not content with the government reforms to the superannuation system which will cost “rich people” a great deal more than the rise in the upper middle tax bracket will give back to them. It appears Mr Storrar is not content with the considerable financial assistance he already receives. The assistance which outweighs the amount that he pays in taxation.

Mr Storrar has his supporters. ABC Producer Amanda Collinge exclaimed that he is a National Hero on twitter. It’s difficult to precisely define the characteristics of a National Hero. The consensus indicates that national Hero’s make significant contributions to the development of their nation or perhaps to global society. Their characteristics can include strong commitment to a just cause and evidence of self-sacrifice.

Mr Storrar does not display these characteristics. Mr Storrar has a lengthy criminal history and a substantial record of drug abuse. That is in part why Ms Collinge deleted the tweet shortly after she posted it. I’d suspect that allegations of the ABC providing Mr Storrar with special treatment are another.

Whilst Storrar is no National Hero the debate around his question merits exploration. I found an article authored by Jenny Noyes to be particularly interesting (3). She opines "Ah, the irony," we are supposed to think. "Imagine asking the government for a tax cut when you don't even pay tax... and rely on government benefits! This kind of reasoning may appear to make sense (apart from being completely devoid of compassion), but in reality it fundamentally misrepresents the purpose of the taxation system in a social democracy.”

I’m not sure how Ms Noyes qualifies her views regarding the purpose of the taxation system. Income redistribution is achieved primarily through the welfare system. Welfare is roughly a third of the Federal budget. One third of the budget is not the entire taxation system. It is merely one element of it. The taxation system does not exist just to redistribute income. Ms Noyes is the one doing the misrepresenting.

Later on in her article Ms Noyes went on to say “How much of a 'tax cut' a low paid worker like Duncan could receive is therefore an irrelevant question. He may pay some tax or none, but either way, the government is offering him and others in a similar position zero relief in this budget while people earning more than $80,000 get to take home extra pocket money.”

Ms Noyes is clearly misrepresenting the facts when she implies that the wealthy get some extra pocket money out of this budget. They quite clearly, demonstrably do not. When the budget is considered holistically and in context, as opposed to cherry picking elements of it, the wealthy are the big losers of Morrison’s first budget. This is why the Liberal Party is dealing with a ‘revolt’ amongst their voter base (4).

Further to Ms Noyes article many other commentators have sympathised with Mr Storrar. Many other commentators seem to believe that simply taxing the wealthy more will fix society’s ills. It’s a view which is deeply flawed.

Consider what happens when fewer people may more taxation than the majority. It’s widely accepted that the beneficiaries of government efforts to redistribute wealth become accustomed to receiving it. There are reduced incentives for the recipients to improve their situation without government help. This is not the prime flaw of the tax and redistribute approach.

Further to this slowly, over time, those fewer people who are burdened with more taxation become fewer still. This is because short sighted commentators expect more and more assistance to go to those least fortunate. There are more less fortunate less wealthy people than fortunate wealthy ones. Eventually fewer and fewer wealthy people wind up supporting more and more less wealthy ones.

This gives those wealthy individuals, the ones who are paying a lot of tax, a great deal of power. Consider what happens to the countries overall amount of taxation if the highest one hundred of those individuals simply leave for another country. Monaco for example. They can afford that, they are wealthy. Can the nation afford it if they leave? What would happen to the services like hospitals and schools that will now have reduced funding? What will replace that lost taxation income?

What if those wealthy individuals approached government? What if they asked for certain policy changes? What if they threatened to simply leave if government didn’t do as they requested? How would government deal with that? We all know the answer to those questions.

Governments using tax to redress financial inequity has arisen in part as a result of increasing financial inequity across society. It’s arisen because it’s seen as an easier answer to the complex problems that beset our existing financial system. It does not fix the actual cause of the problem which is the financial system itself. This simple fact is most important.

I’m already on the record criticising the way our financial system works (5). To surmise I think our current system acts as an inequity conduit transferring wealth from those who have less relative wealth to those who have more. The longer this persists, the greater the chances of social upheaval.

If we as a society really want to help Mr Storrar and those in similar circumstances wealth redistribution isn’t the answer. The answer is to fix the financial system. We should not be dithering about tinkering with how best to redistribute wealth. We should be working to ensure it is not accumulated so inequitably and without effort from the recipients of wealth.  

(1)        http://www.nyddesigns.com/blog/2015/7/1/its-our-abc

 (2)       http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/federal-budget/melbourne-dad-duncan-storrar-steals-the-election-debate-from-the-pollies/news-story/3e3bdcd28baf3005b65f677cf3952271

 (3)       http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/budget-2016-why-the-amount-of-tax-duncan-storrar-pays-doesnt-actually-matter-20160511-goshpn.html

 (4)       http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/malcolm-turnbull-faces-questions-over-super-changes-as-anxiety-grows-among-coalition-mps-20160601-gp8wek.html

 (5)       http://www.nyddesigns.com/blog/2015/2/1/the-inequity-conduit

The End of the Simulation

Nick Bostrom, potential threats to humanity and why we don’t research those threats.

Eventually our planet will likely be destroyed. If we’re to survive as a species, we’ll have to spread to the stars at some point or make peace with the almost inevitability of our own destruction. You’d think that because of this humanity would be devoting significant resources towards identifying and mitigating the many risks that we face.

Unfortunately, our academic priorities don’t appear to be skewed towards existential risk.  Nick Bostrom gave a short presentation in 2013 at TEDxOxford which briefly outlined many of the issues confronting researchers working on existential risk (1).

A little under eight minutes into the talk Bostrom refers to a chart showing existing academic priorities. Humanity devotes almost six hundred times more resources towards research around snowboarding the we do around existential risk. We devote one thousand more resources towards the humble dung beetle. I’m not sure how many resources we devote to angry birds.

I’m not sure why this is the case. Perhaps its simple ignorance. Perhaps the thought of our impending destruction is just so confronting that we’ll do anything to avoid dealing with that. Perhaps we simply can’t handle our species overall lack of importance in the cosmos.

Nick Bostrom is one person who is doing something about this issue. In 2005 he founded the Future of Humanity Institute (2). The institute is a research centre which focusses on the big questions about our species existence and future prospects.

He argues that the most cost effective way to reduce the existential risks to humanity is to fund the analysis of a wide range of potential risks and strategies. This analysis should be conducted from a long term perspective.

Bostrom’s view is that many of the most worrisome existential risks centre around the emergence of new technology. Specifically, Bostrom is particularly concerned about the emergence of a true artificial intelligence (AI). In 2014 Bostrom published Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies (3).

This quite brilliant book describes the various ways that superintelligence could develop from biological methods such as selective breeding and genetic manipulation through to whole brain emulation by technological means.

He discusses the forms in which superintelligence might arrive. For example, a ‘speed’ superintelligence could be roughly as intelligent as humans, but able to process information faster. A ‘collective’ superintelligence might be composed of a number of smaller intellects interacting in some way. Lastly a ‘quality’ superintelligence could carry out tasks which humans simply cannot do.

Bostrom focuses heavily on what he calls the ‘control problem’. He points out that should humanity give birth to superintelligence there is no guarantee that it’s goals will align with our goals. This could lead to the AI acting in a manner which might lead to our harm or eventual destruction. Whilst every effort could be made to constrain the superintelligence how could we possibly do this if the entity we are trying to constrain is more intelligent than we are?

Try as we might to programmatically retain control once again how can we be sure that this super intelligent entity will not navigate a way around whatever programmatic constraints we put in place? It is indeed worrisome that Asimov’s three laws of robotics (4), which were written in 1942 are still the in many ways best constraints that humanity has yet devised to control a potential artificial intelligence.

Bostrom has also found some renown as a leading proponent of the simulation argument (5). This fascinating theory contends that one of three seemingly unlikely propositions must be true.

1. The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a post human stage (that is, one capable of running high-fidelity ancestor simulations) is very close to zero or;

2. The fraction of post human civilizations that are interested in running ancestor-simulations is very close to zero or;

3. The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one.

Bostrom claims that if the third proposition is true then we are almost certainly living in a simulation. Before you throw your hands up in the air and tell Bostrom to save this kind of talk for the Wachowski brothers just consider the idea.

Right now in our civilisation one of the most popular forms of entertainment is so called reality TV shows. It’s difficult to argue that humanity doesn’t enjoy watching the struggles and triumphs of others.

Right now in our civilisation we run simulations all the time. They are called computer games. Some of these are very detailed. They aim to enthral the user. There have absolutely been cases of gamers losing themselves and in extreme cases even dying as a result of playing detailed computer games.

If we could actually run a ‘real world’ simulation online do you think we would? I’d suggest that’s exactly what we would do if we could. We love to play god. We love it so much we invented god. We love it so much we invented second life (6).

Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies is quite a difficult read. I listened to it in audiobook version. I’d like to say the narrator made it easier to digest. I suspect the narrator’s seemingly onerous tone may even have made it worse. Despite this I still recommend the book and I thoroughly recommend Bostrom’s other work (7).

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0Nf3TcMiHo

2. http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/

3. http://www.amazon.com/Superintelligence-Dangers-Strategies-Nick-Bostrom/dp/1501227742

4. http://www.auburn.edu/~vestmon/robotics.html

5. http://www.simulation-argument.com/

6. http://secondlife.com/

7. http://www.nickbostrom.com/

The Balancing Act

It looks like the federal government has finally delivered a winning budget.

I usually look forward to budget week. This one has been no exception. Given that this budget will lead into an election campaign I was somewhat concerned that the government might pork barrel and I’m pleased that they appear to have resisted the temptation to do so.

It will be interesting to see what the opposition makes of the government’s efforts. The government has left a few convenient openings for the opposition to attack but it remains to be seen if Shorten takes the bait.

Shorten could attack the government for not doing more to fund health and education. This is the traditional strength of the Labor party. To attack here though leaves the opposition vulnerable to a counterattack suggesting that the Labor party isn’t fiscally responsible. 

Alternatively Shorten could attack the increase in the tax bracket from $80,000 to $87,000 for middle income earners. This will play to entrenched supporters of the Labor party but it will do little to win over middle class Australia. Furthermore, a relatively high proportion of those earning less than $80,000 a year already receive more in benefits than they pay out in tax. The government won’t point this out. They don’t need to.

From the governments perspective there are two substantial wins in this budget. Like many of the best initiatives they are very simple. Despite their simplicity their consequences could be far reaching.

The first of these is the reform of the company tax rate. The government is reducing the rate from 30% down to 27.5% from July 2016. The rate will continue to fall until it reaches 25% by 2027. The clever part of this reform is that the reduction only applies to small businesses with an annual turnover of less than 10 million. 

This encourages existing small businesses to expand thus potentially creating employment opportunities. It encourages people to start new small businesses. Most importantly it doesn’t deliver a tax break to larger businesses and for this reason it avoids the criticism that a company tax break is helping the ‘big end’ of town.

The second win is the reform to the superannuation system. It’s early days but in my view this is a truly clever reform. The Government is capping the amount people can transfer into tax free retirement phase superannuation accounts at $1.6 million and imposing a lifetime cap on non-concessional contributions of $500,000.

No doubt there will be some particularly unintelligent people who will suggest that a $1.6 million cap is too high. To put this criticism in perspective a five percent return on $1.6 million is $80,000. That is more than enough for a comfortable retirement but it is not so comfortable that someone earning that amount could be accused of being very wealthy.

The lifetime cap on non-concessional contributions prevents the wealthy from reducing their overall tax burden by diverting much of their wealth to superannuation where it is taxed at a much lesser rate than their income. The wealthy abusing the superannuation system was one of the prime criticisms of the existing system.

The only small criticism I would make of the new super changes is that the capped amount should be increased in line with inflation every year. This ensures that the figure remains reasonable into the future. The government may have already done this, that will be clarified over the coming days I expect as will the oppositions response to the budget which may yet provide us all with further cause for debate.