A resonance frequency approach to stopping the motor of the world

Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 11 months ago to Going Galt
133 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

In a prior thread, we considered the possibility of committing sabotage to stop the motor of the world. To stimulate the discussion, I took the role of "devil's advocate" and suggested that Galt might have engaged in sabotage. There was almost universal agreement that Galt would have lost his moral authority to lead the Gulch if he had committed sabotage, rather than only convincing titans to go Galt.

A recent thread entitled "Obama is John Galt" started by jimjamesjames was largely shot down as well, and for good reason.

http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/30...

However, that thread made me reconsider strategy for stopping the motor of the world.

The looters and moochers in real life have taken Cloward and Piven's strategy of overwhelming "the system" with more and more moochers. This is an act of sabotage. This is a moral line that we have decided not to cross. This puts us at a strategic disadvantage.

Add to that disadvantage the fact that Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are convincing others (like Larry Ellison of Cisco Systems) to give to charity. I urge you to look at how many billionaires have taken The Giving Pledge:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Giving_...

Someone here in the Gulch recently suggested that this giving pledge might actually be their way of going Galt. I forget which Gulcher suggested this (Zenphamy? sjatkins?) and apologize to that person.

We all know what Ayn Rand thinks about altruism. I have said previously that the charitable contributions of these billionaires may lengthen the time for the collapse of the looter/moocher era sufficiently that there may not be a time when producers like us would be able to go back into the world. Their charitable contributions delay the inevitable pain for the moochers.

Now switch gears and start thinking about physics and differential equations.

Think back to when you took physics and learned about constructive and destructive interference. If there is a disturbance that causes an object to oscillate at its resonance frequency (or an integer multiplier of it), then the object will break MUCH faster.

For an introductory treatment of resonance frequencies, go to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonance

For an example, see the Tacoma Narrows Bridge Collapse videos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-zczJXS...

If we are to stop the motor of the world, an alternate solution would be to do something that reinforces the interference that the looters or those encouraging people to take the Giving Pledge are applying.

Does it make sense to convince MANY producers to go Galt, or will we be more effective by harnessing the momentum of The Giving Pledge to accomplish the goal of depriving the looter/moocher world of producers?

If one takes producers out of the system, how does this change the 2nd order differential equation(s) that would describe the producer-looter-moocher problem?

Please comment on
a) how one would implement such a strategy; and b) whether this would count as sabotage.


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 5.
  • Posted by $ 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The mere threat of taking away the free stuff is sufficient. The frequency of that is about every two years, whenever Democrats want to demonize their enemies.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Agreed except on one point. I do not make the assumption that the purpose of setting up a foundation is to provide charity. Most people who set up foundations and even those people who donate to get the get out of taxes free card do so primarily because they want their dollars to go either to establish a legacy or to put up an image that will get positive PR.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 9 years, 11 months ago
    The secret behind using resonance is that small inputs applied at the resonant frequency of the system produce LARGE outputs. When applied to the collapse of our socialist system, I could suggest giving to the moochers to increase their expectations of free stuff, and then withdraw the free stuff for awhile and make the government step up and give it. And do that at the right frequency (maybe social workers could input on this one) so as to excite the masses between bouts of getting some and wanting more...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "But if enough people give away their fortunes to the ones who don't earn anything, the motor will stop." Well said. +1 to term2.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    At least with the charitable income tax deduction, if one does make the choice to give charity, it could be aligned with one's principles if one were not an Objectivist. Giving to the government is an even greater evil. Nevertheless, I agree with you on all your assertions.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Panama and Chile are on the map amongst possible Gulch sites, especially the westernmost province of Panama. There are many more Dagnys and Reardens than people who are willing to shrug.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Indeed there are a lot of Philip Reardens who don't even appreciate charity. I gave up on charity when furniture and clothing that I had used in my own house was deemed "not good enough" for Goodwill to put in their showroom. That was just before I read AS.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Ibecame 9 years, 11 months ago
    This has the glint of something from Isaac Asimov's Psychohistory. While I do agree with you that some human solutions do have a mathematical basis, the problem here is that you are making an assumption. That the purpose of setting up a "Foundation"(Translation: rich persons charity) is to provide charity. You are also making the assumption that Bill Gates, Warren Buffett are actually charitable people and will distribute and use these funds in a charitable manner. "Foundations" are a get out of taxes free card, not to mention the probate advantages, and the average of those I looked at only gave back less than 4% in the form of charity. If either Oren Boyle or Westley Mooch were real people alive today they would each have their own "Charitable Foundation". For the public good.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Perhaps you are correct, and that is why I wasn't ready to dismiss the encouragement of producers to take the Giving Pledge.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by KevinSchwinkendorf 9 years, 11 months ago
    Isn't this what RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) are already doing, contributing to the problem? If you really want to accelerate the collapse, just vote for Hillary Clinton (I refuse to refer to that creature as simply "Hillary," because using only someone's first name is a form of endearment, and I would never want anyone to think I thought of her in a positive way).
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 9 years, 11 months ago
    I am closer to the "shrugged" mentality in the last few years. I gave up manufacturing medical equipment after the FDA took over regulating it. I really dont want to die "rich". I would rather spend my time on whats interesting and enjoyable and have just enough money to keep myself going in decent style until I die. Why make a lot of money, only to have the government profit from it. If I had kids, I would tell them to do what they could to keep the government from profiting from their work, and hope the system collapses soon and can be rebuilt as a true capitalist system.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I am DONE with charity in this society I think. Its so hard to decide who is really in need and will use the charity to better themselves so they dont need it anymore. The bums on the street today just expect ME to work so they can sit around and collect money from people
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 9 years, 11 months ago
    I wonder how many of the wealthy would take the "Giving Pledge" if the charitable income tax deduction was dropped. Charity should be an act of personal sacrifice, not a tax dodge.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 9 years, 11 months ago
    What the giving pledge does is in the end to empower the non-productive people into wanting more and more, while it depletes the resources of the productive people. It will backfire on the Buffets, in that the very people they help will become "monsters" and want more and more. This is happening to our liberal government right now- which is why their non-discretionary expenditures have exploded in recent years. Whether the Buffets really intend to stop the motor of the world with this strategy is doubtful. Its probably some altruistic thing instead. But if enough people give away their fortunes to the ones who dont earn anything, the motor will stop .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ hash 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The real problem is that most productive people are behaving like Dagny and Rearden and not abandoning the collectivist regimes they are in. Too many people and companies who should know better continue to remain in (and immigrate to) countries with high taxes and fascist economic policies (especially the USSA) and so keep feeding the state.

    I expect this to start changing rapidly over the next few years as collectivist states descend further into bankruptcy and civilizational breakdown while immigration options to more sane countries increase (eg. Panama and Chile now have nearly open-door immigration policies for many people) and alternative currency systems become more popular and provide a method to do business privately free from statist financial surveillance and currency manipulation.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ hash 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I disagree... charity doesn't really delay the inevitable, it actually brings it closer in the same way that forced wealth redistribution does, by reallocating capital from productive hands to (largely unproductive) charity cases.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I agree with you and Ms. Rand about charity except that it does keep the moochers from feeling the pain that they ought to feel. This delays the inevitable at our expense.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by LaissezFaire 9 years, 11 months ago
    Sorry, no contribution to (a) or (b) here ... just a side note. Ayn Rand also said: "My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue." Playboy, March 1964
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Unfortunately I think you are correct that a calculation of the resonance frequency is beyond our capabilities.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ohiocrossroads 9 years, 11 months ago
    "By depriving you of victims, I have shortcut the normal course of history, and have thereby destroyed your world." John Galt didn't try to apply mathematics to the problem of stopping the motor of the world, he pointed out to his rectruited strikers that they were right in pursuing their self-interest, and wrong in putting the fruits of their thought and work at the service of the looters.

    In reality, there is too much complexity in the interaction between people and the economy to boil it down to a simple calculation of a resonant natural frequency.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Thank you for recalling straightlinelogic's post. That was one that I had missed, even though I look at most of his. It is quite relevant to this one, kevinw.

    As for speeding up the collapse process, I do agree that it would take at least thousands of producers (probably tens of thousands) to be taken out of production. The bottom line is that if producers are to strike and want to come back, the collapse has to be fast enough that such producers are not all past age 75 when the time to return occurs. Otherwise, striking is not in one's best interest.

    Also regarding speeding up the process of collapse, one learns in crack mechanics that all stress focuses on the longest crack in an object. Think about someone trying to walk with a so-called "stress fracture" in his/her foot or ankle. Until that crack heals, every step is pain-ridden. However, in economics, the same rule does not apply. If we choose to speed up the collapse of the world, we would have to see to it that the same weak area is stressed repeatedly. This also presumes that there is no "fatigue limit" in economic terms. In materials science, when a material has a fatigue limit, above a certain crack length, increasing the crack length does not lower the maximum stress that the object can tolerate. Unfortunately I suspect that there is such a fatigue limit if someone were to try intentionally to collapse an economy.

    As for your Jeb vs. Hillary debate, I was two months too young to vote for Reagan. There hasn't been an R or a D since that I have had any interest in voting FOR in a general presidential election. It's well past time to put this dog down.

    As for whether Gates et al. have gone Galt, I have found suggestions over the past nine days from David Kelley and from coaldigger regarding this possibility quite fascinating:

    http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/2f...
    Within that David Kelley wrote, "What if Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Zuckerberg, Peter Thiel and a few others had disappeared 12 years ago (despite the fact that most of them are liberals :))?"

    In Khalling's post, http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/30...

    Posted by coaldigger 5 days, 2 hours ago

    "I believe these guys have truly gone Galt. If they kept their money invested in their enterprises with their minds, they would have produced more and more, while we did less and less. As the leeches became hostile to the hands that were feeding the trough, they said "fine. Take it. It is gold to us but it will be poison to you." They have withdrawn leaving a fool's legacy and can bask in the adulation of the pigs that they are leading to slaughter. The disgust that they feel for us must be amazing!"
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Lucky, you had a very nice example that correctly proves a point I have observed in another system myself near the resonance frequency.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Technocracy 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Also +1 for...

    Working physics in.
    Gallopin Gertie link as you illustration
    Tying this back to the oher threads

    Bravo
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo