Aperiomics is a system I thought of in 1989, I’ve been working on it mainly privately since then but am now starting to publish it. More detailed of it are found at Aperiomics.org, it is based on 12 mathematical principles of chaos and randomness that combine to explain events in war, economics, crime, sociology, evolution, etc.
People are welcome to read, they can correspond with me at firstname.lastname@example.org.
The Wall Street Journal’s David Wessel has an excellent piece Monday
on what academic research tells us about taxes and inequality in the
United States. The short version: Inequality has exploded in the past
three decades. Taxes, meanwhile, have gotten more progressive — though
not enough to counteract that increase in inequality.
The rise of the Iv-B economy occurs from innovations, these are increasing because of computerization creating more booms and busts as well as winners and losers. Putting a brake on this runs the risk of collapsing the growth of some causing stagnation, it is more important to have strong I-O policing to reduce wealth inequality from fraud and predatory speculation. For example much of this inequality cam from the run up to the GFC from financial speculation rather than legitimate businesses.
made the graph below to illustrate that latter fact. The red line shows
how much taxes and transfers (such as food stamps) have done to reduce
inequality between 1979 and 2009. The data comes from table nine here.
The blue line, meanwhile, shows how much more progressive taxes and
transfers would have had to be in order to maintain 1979 levels of
2009, taxes and transfers reduced inequality by 26.4 percent, around
the same amount as the 24.8 percent reduction in 1979. But the tax code
actually has to become more and more progressive every year to prevent
inequality from growing. Taxes and transfers needed to reduce inequality
by 38.2 percent in 2009 to keep it down to 1979 levels.