Investing in Microsoft, Virgin, or Symantic is a diversified investment strategy. The companies operate in many market sectors, produce products across diversified markets, and supply services to everyone from miners to financials, home users to governments. Your risk is thusly spread across more than 500 companies.

They're investing money in the idea that the stock is undervalued.

Revenues up, profits down. Odd. Revenues up all the time because inflation.

Stocks don't reflect real business performance.

Where are you getting this from? I detect a very basic failure to either apply critical thinking or reading comprehension.

In A.I., they showed a human-like robot with personality and sensitivity to pain. It was rather complaint. To demonstrate its human A.I. features and pain response, the salesman drove a nail straight through her hand and made her scream.

In hind-sight, you probably meant foresight.

We produce Mo-99 isotopes of Molybdenum for medical use by nuclear fusion. Certain other medical isotopes of Cadmium are also produced by fusion. Doing so is simple: You produce a high electrical charge on two coils, and pump ionized gas between them. Each ion will gain 11,000 kelvin per volt of acceleration; you can readily reach 200 million kelvin or so in this way. There is a small probability of particle collision, as all ions are accelerating toward a rough center; these collisions release X-rays, neutrons, heat, and light; although x-rays, heat, and light are redundant. Collisions in this way initiate nuclear fusion.

Anti-corrosion plating for sewer pipes is not valuable? There would be less work maintaining sewer pipes! For that matter, platinum is awesome and allows a large increase in hardness of metal; tungsten also allows hardness and heat resistance; not to forget Iridium and Rubidium, both of which are exceedingly rare and highly useful. Titanium and Nickel are somewhat common, but nowhere near as common as iron.

Without energy scarcity, most can be automated. The most scarce resource is not energy--that's the second most scarce, and it's distanced greatly from the third. The most scarce resource is people who want to work for the common good, our philosophers and our philanthropists.

When we have enough energy that we only need their labor to direct largely-automated processes, we will have zero scarcity.

Above is a bunch of words.

To summarize: by dividing up all direct welfare costs (not including medicare/medicaid), it's possible to dole out enough money that even the unemployed have--just barely--enough money each month to obtain livable housing, food, and other basic needs above the cost of supplying these things. That makes them a target for businesses to pump them for every dollar they have, which is easiest by supplying them with the things they need.

I've worked out that it's feasible. I've largely worked out where the money comes from. I've avoided risks in calculations by deliberately tilting the error out of my favor, so any uncertainty is opportunity rather than threat. I'm now working on implementation and transition details, and playing with the numbers to generate charts and graphs and interesting points.

Eventually, this will become presentations, speeches, and campaigns. I have time: the basic welfare concept is an unconditional basic income, which is gaining mind share; I've begun the refinement of a welfare plan that exchanges our system with a UBI-based system, designing both the transition and the final state to maximize stability and success.

If it works--and it's almost certain to work, if only I can get it implemented without tinkering (lowering/raising the benefit, feeding it from a graduated tax, etc.)--it will provide a stable welfare system with no welfare traps, immunity to income inequality (it simply doesn't affect the amount of tax collected and the benefit paid out), robust against economic damage (such as the mid-2000s financial market collapse), and resistant to consequential effects of free money (if UBI is too high, you start encouraging inflation--far too high and you get hyperinflation; the system collapses before the benefit is high enough to reduce work incentive).

The obvious result is nobody needs a job. Life is not pleasant unemployed, but you're not going to starve to death sleeping in a puddle of your own piss in an alley. Scarcity won't threaten *living* day-to-day, because you can always eat and always go home out of the rain.

By the by, I've learned that *knowing* the solution and *implementing* the solution are two different things. This ranges from knowing that it's possible, knowing how it's possible, but not knowing the details; to knowing everything but not knowing how to make people do it; to knowing it all, having the opportunity, but being unmotivated to make the time or take the effort. This is most hard when trying to change the world: everyone wants to just tax the shit out of the rich, but, when you're working for the greater good, the first person you should ask something of is yourself.

Well you're wrong. I can turn any material into any other material. I can make plutonium from rocks, or air, or tree leaves. It just takes a fucking lot of power.

Think of all the things we could do with infinite power. That's scarcity.

It's been done that way, but that's far different. The mincome experiment was small scale, finite, and not set up the same way. It's like calling out unemployment or social security: there are a thousand ways to do this, and most of them are wrong; in this case, you've found a way that was temporary, and possibly non-optimal for a long term solution.

To make a car analogy: It's like someone said they could build a horseless carriage, and you're like, "You mean with an engine, right?" Yes. Coal, steam, liquid fuel? Gasoline, diesel? What topology of engine? What kind of drive train? Have you ever tried driving without power steering and power brakes? What about emissions control?

It's just barely possible to solve poverty. Nobody goes homeless, nobody goes hungry.

The numbers are irritating me for the moment. Transitions are possible, and inexpensive; I actually have the change-over working now. What gets me is the new tax structure doesn't increase or reduce government spending or deficit, but it makes anyone earning under about $100k slightly richer; up around $400k, they're just below 3% poorer (about $8000/year); then it rebounds, until you hit $19,467,000 income, at which point taxes break even. Above that, taxes are actually lower.

The wonky dip right at the upper-upper-middle-class is a result of converting all welfare taxes to a separate flat tax, but keeping the remaining graduated income tax system and subtracting out welfare tax proportionally. I think I have data enough for an 87% pitch rate--higher, because those people can demand a salary boost (they're in power positions) from businesses that are getting taxed a hell of a lot less than the salary dip (i.e. the market can make it up and still come out richer than they started).

Numbers without context. Check the 2013 tab. Note that there is error: Anywhere with risk (i.e. risk of incorrect math, risk of states eliminating welfare but not turning down taxes, etc.) I tend to work on more conservative numbers (i.e. I'm working on federal numbers, but not considering that states will eliminate some expenses, because they may not decrease taxes as a result--and thus not).

I'm also working entirely by federal numbers, not calculating in the state/local taxes at all. I've also ignored the standard deduction entirely, so you can imagine that people are getting that straight +$7125 right up to some $5800 of income(!), and then everyone has $5800 more than listed (because I didn't factor it into their income at all, so the amount of taxes I'm calculating are based on income that's actually $5800 higher than listed).

Yes, that's pretty much taking all the direct welfare money, chopping it up, and paying it out to everyone over age 18 equally. What's not listed is transition strategies or full final state--which includes a full and immediate repeal of minimum wage. I also don't dive into any of the impact of the system (market force impacts, ability to resist economic downturns better, improvements in economic activity, etc.). I've thought of damn near everything.

The scarcity that prevents us from manufacturing gold by dumping excessive amounts of energy into a fusor, the way we manufacture molybdenum and cadmium.

Do you honestly think I couldn't make use of, say, 50 times the entire energy output of the earth's generation facilities if you gave it to me?

And that's something I'm working to eliminate in America.

Energy scarcity.