Why are things like the JWST telescope along with Artemis and Dart spacecraft advancing the economy and civil and military technology?

Above: Dart mission. 

The growing economy requires innovation and trust. 

The price of the JWST and Artemis is very high. But the fact is that they are advancing economical advantage. Those kinds of high-profile projects are a good introduction to the know-how of the actors that are working with them. This thing will bring companies to offer their ideas and discuss with NASA and its cooperatives about advancing space technology in civil and military areas. 

When we are thinking about the price of the moon program. We always forget that the moon program gave many sidelines like velcros. And the experience of heavy-duty systems. But it also opened the path to developing lightweight computers and later artificial intelligence. So the projects like Artemis and JWST are offering the framework where new products can develop. 

Things like Mars-rovers are also offering the tool how to test independently operating vehicles and the artificial intelligence software that can turn into everyday life. Innovation is the key element in those missions. 

The new technology can be dangerous in the wrong hands. 

NASA's Dart mission also offers the possibility to create and develop a new type of artificial intelligence-based technology that allows one to search for the right asteroid and shoot the penetrators to it. But the same technology that is used in Dart can use for creating killer satellites that can destroy at least military satellites. 

The problem with killer satellites is that space is, of course, a demilitarized area. But things like GPS satellites, recon satellites that point to the targets, and satellites that are supporting military forces in some other ways are military targets. The military role of the satellite makes it a legal military target. 

So the killer satellites are satellites that might seem harmless to people on Earth. But modern technology is changing that situation. Those satellites can drop armed quadcopters from the orbiter. 

Those quadcopters can be satellite-controlled and armed with pistols or larger weapons. Those systems are more realistic than some "rail guns". They are simply capsules that are dropped through the atmosphere and release those drones. 

Image: https://therobustframe.in/dart-mission-by-nasa-to-stop-an-asteroid/

Is an economy without money possible?

The idea of the money-running economy is a growth that continues forever. 

We always have a money-based society. Money is the thing that keeps our society rolling and live without money feels utopia. Our way to think about the economy is that growth is the thing that makes the economy work. The growth that continues forever will make jobs. And the jobs are giving taxes to the pockets of the government. 

But the problem is that the growth doesn't continue forever. The decreasing economy causes that people are losing their jobs. And the next boom or increasing the curve means that the people will get their work back. So the economy is like waves. Money is the thing that controls the economy. The purpose of money is to regulate consumption. 

But money is a complicated thing. There should be a property that will use to buy the money or currency out from markets. If the value of the currency is going too low. The value of a currency depends on the balance between property and the currency. That is in the markets. If there is too much money in markets that thing will drop the value of the currency. If there is only a small number of money in markets the value of money will get higher. 

Digital currency along with cryptocurrency is also money. They both are the small files where is the verification number. The difference between crypto- and digital currencies is not easy to determine. Digital currency is the official money files made under the control of the government central banks. Cryptocurrencies are shares that are sold to people. 

Cryptocurrencies are owned and created by private companies. Those companies promise that they will buy cryptocurrency investments back when the investor wants. But the thing is that cryptocurrencies are acting like normal currency. The company that sells cryptocurrency will buy them back by using currency what the customer wants. 

The problem with cryptocurrencies is that people can invest as much money in those cryptocurrencies as they want. Because cryptocurrencies are virtual money and the system can make those things limitless. There is the possibility that a large or even major number of the national currency will go to the accounts of the cryptocurrency company. 

And the problem is that if a large number of people are taking their money out of the accounts that thing can cause the reaction that there is too much money in markets. That will cause the collapse of the value of currencies. 

Of course, there is the possibility that the governments deny that kind of thing. The laws can use to control panic in the markets. But there is the possibility that some investors are acting for the nuclear powers like Russia and China. 

Those governments are not following when their investments turn to sand. In that case, the small nations where those companies are registered can only pay the price. What they can do if the more powerful country comes to monitor the interests of its citizens? And the base of markets is trust. Without trust is no investment. If somebody wants to socialize the investments. 

That means that investors will take their money out of that kind of business environment. Things that are causing problems to get investments are violence, civil disorder, corruption, and especially the weak governments that cannot protect the individual people against illegal activities. Things like public provocations are also a good way to destroy the trust of the investors. 

If the nation will deny the payments to other countries can cause problems with investments and also that kind of country will face problems getting financing like loans. Things like socializing the capital might seem very nice. But people should think about what happens after that kind of action? Would you trust that kind of actor?

Could society without money ever be possible?

The question is about the money itself. The purpose of money is to regulate the use of goods. The reason why money was taken into use was that the goods were enough for everybody. But then something happened and some people got more money than others. And the question is, why that happened?

Were the first people who earned better than other people who inherited something that belonged to their parents? If that is true those persons started capitalism, where the people who owned lots of things got more capital. And that thing is called accumulation theory. The large mass of money is bringing more money in the cash of those persons who owned something. But can we turn our society to work without money? 

The argument for money is that it controls people, that they are not going to shop and then take everything with them. So is it possible that the money or currency can replace by some other system, where people have a certain number of every single good? That thing is called the equal economy. It means that every single good is shared before and every people will get everything equally. Is that thing possible? 

Maybe we should change our attitudes very much that our society will accept so radical change in the economic way of thinking. The extreme version of the equal economy is that there are no individual people, and everything is done the same way. People will keep similar clothes, they always eat the same food and probably make similar things. That kind of thing can cause that people are turning to mass. 

The fact is that society must turn more advanced that people can turn to live in an equal economy. People who are working in hard work require more food than people who are working in the office. So the equal economy requires that all work is transfer to the robots. And artificial intelligence must follow how people are using their goods. 

The problem with an equal economy is that we are individuals. We don't like the same things, and we forget our bread in the locker. There are always people who are taking too many products. And those products are going to garbage. The reason why money is so important in our economics is that is always been like that. Money is the key element in our life. And the reason for that is some people are not following the principle of moderation everywhere. 

()https://visionsoftheaiandfuture.blogspot.com/

Rudolf Meidner and his relationship with Palme

Rudolf Meidner and his relationship with Palme

Why Meidner said that the ownership of 52% was suitable for employees? Why not 68-70%?

Rudolf Meidner introduced an idea, that the workers, who would work in the certain-size companies would be allowed to buy the stocks of the company, by using the funds, what is put for the workers, who would buy the parts of the company by using the focused stock selling (1). And after 20 years the workers would own 52% of the company. So where Meidner took that number? Why he didn't use numbers 60-70%? Why 52% was suitable ownership? This is one of the most interesting things in the Meidner-Rehn model, which is called market-economical socialism. 

The idea of this model was that the workers would feel more responsible for their work, but many people said, that those funds would be a dangerous step to socialism. And as I have written before in Finnish, there is a one really interesting thing, and that is that China is following this model or has adapted a part of the Meidner model to its economy. I have written this thing in here: https://yhteisojahistoria.blogspot.com/2019/11/rudolf-meidner-ja-markkinatalous.html

The role of Olof Palme (1927-1986) in those funds

Were the powerful demonstrations of the entrepreneurs in the early 1980s caused that some unstable person shot Palme? This thing is hard to prove because there are not convictions about this case. And that means the murder of Palme is still unsolved. 

But let's go tho think about the relationship with Meidner and Olof Palme. The prime minister of Sweden, who was supporting Meidner and his model. The thing, why the employers were resisted the model, what Meidner created was that it would turn the Economical model of Sweden to socialist. But there was one really interesting thing, and that thing is that this kind of ownership would be brought workers to the same table with employers, and that thing could uncover something, what those people didn't want other people to say. 

So the thing that makes this thing very interesting is that the funds for employees were supported also the man named Casimir Ernroth in Finland. That man was one of the most influential men in the Finnish industry. And the support for those funds was a surprise for everybody. But then we have forgotten that Enroth might be thought that other people would fall those funds, even if they were operating in his own company. 

And when Palme was taken the seat as the prime minister in the early 1980s the social democratic party began that program, but the party was not united. There was resistance in the government, and some people thought that the support, that Palme gave to those funds was not unlimited. Sometimes I have thought, that in many of those cases the supporters would expect that some other person would fall that kind of thing. Olof Palme was murdered in 1986, and the case is still open. 

There are many speculations about the murderer, and there have been many speculations about this case, and one is that those funds have caused the death of Palme because the demonstrations were so powerful, and some people, who had some kind of emotional touch with those things shot Palme. But had Palme something to do with those funds, except he permitted to establish them? But there are many other theories about this case. And the powerful demonstrations are feeding the fantasies and hallucinations of the people, who have an unstable mind. 

(1)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_funds

(2)

https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palkansaajarahastot

Every individual in the society maximizes own benefit.

Every individual in the society maximizes own benefit.

The traditional politics is in crisis. The problem is that the candidates are coming more often from the highly trained wealthy families, what already have contacts to the politics. The thing is that those people are promising things, which are accepted by their social network. And the thing what makes this advantage very sad is that the "Game theory" says that every individual automatically maximizes own benefit means that in the worst case the politicians would voting only people, who are from the high-class societies.

When we are talking about the social classes of society, we should mention, what we are meaning when we are using words social and economic class of people? Are we mean people, who have high salaries, or are we mean people, who have high education? Those things are not always mean the same things. And the main problem of politics is that the people, who have high training and high education are voting more often than people, who have low education or low salary.

Why highly educated people are voting more often than uneducated? This is the question, what people are sometimes thinking. And at the same times, we might want to know, why people who are living in higher social position are giving their votes more usual than people, who would not have that position? This is a very interesting thing because giving votes is an only legal way to affect the people, who are sitting in the parliament.

And this thing is also alarming because people are giving votes to similar people, what they are. The thing is that people, who are children of highly educated people, or who have parents, who have a big role in politics are voting very often is that they might know people, who are working in politics.

That thing means that those people understand that there is a mean, who people are voting. This kind of advance, that only highly educated or wealthy people are giving their votes has a very sad influence on politics. If so-called normal people are losing touch with everyday politics that means that the politicians are losing also their touch with everyday life, and the politicians are getting old.

This kind of things is a really bad thing, because if every people, who are voting are giving their votes by following the socio-anthropologic model where people are voting individuals, what is similar with them, that means the politics would turn one-sided. And the dangerous aspect of this advantage is that the people, who would want to become candidates for elections are coming from wealthy and highly educated families.

When we are thinking about the price of the campaigns, there must realize, that the candidates need very strong support for their project. If there is no financial or mental support, the career of the person in politics would stay short. People must dare to make speeches and speak to people if they want to become a member of the parliament. During that process, a person can hear or read very strong criticism and that means that political candidate needs very strong support in the road to parliament.

https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-10984870