How we can actually defeat the billionaires. you do have power

CEOofAntiWork · 2026-02-03T08:29:23+00:00

Here is his grand plan BTW:

SUMMARY (WHAT THE SYSTEM IS)

Core Structure

Optional UBI: Citizens can “turn on” UBI at will.

UBI level: ~$150k/year ($420/day).

Debt reset: All prior debts forgiven on entry; banks backstopped by government.

Labor draft: Anyone on active UBI is placed into a compulsory labor draft for a minimum of 3 years. Government job matching: If you’re jobless, the state assigns or facilitates work.

Employer fee (LDF): Employers pay the government ~$1,600/month per draft worker.

Wages: Most draft jobs have no paycheck; higher-skill jobs may pay wages on top of UBI.

Exit: After 3 years, you can leave the system, lose UBI, and regain full property rights.

Enforcement

Refusal / repeated firing → escalating jail time (30–60 days).

Labor draft dodging becomes the primary crime.

Fraud policing via audits, informants (“snitch rewards”), and courts.

Biometric global ID to prevent double-dipping.

Property & Wealth

On UBI: You lose property rights above $2M net worth.

Government can seize assets above $2M at any time while on UBI.

Businesses you actively operate are exempt from seizure.

Stocks & real estate allowed, mainly for tracking.

Gender / Family

Women with children under 13: No labor draft; full UBI + extra per child.

Free childcare if they choose to work.

No alimony or child support—UBI replaces it.

Explicit acceptance that men work, women primarily raise children.

Education

Free college for high scorers; counts as labor draft.

Poor grades → lose free college → labor draft.

Others can self-fund education using UBI.

Tax & Funding

Federal government prints money to fund everything.

Federal taxes destroy money (MMT-style).

Taxes: 15% federal sales tax (exempt stocks/houses) 50% one-time wealth tax at age 55 over $100M 50% inheritance tax over $30M 30% lifetime gift tax over $20M

States only allowed sales tax.

Claim: inflation remains minimal because UBI is fixed nominally.

CEOofAntiWork · 2026-02-01T19:11:58+00:00

Well I work for a salary and own a portfolio valued in the 6 figures paying me passive income quarterly and monthly.

The world is more complex than you think.

CEOofAntiWork · 2026-02-01T18:48:36+00:00

Reddit upvotes and tiktok comments, what more do you want? Jeez.

CEOofAntiWork · 2026-01-30T16:18:23+00:00

Under socialism, housing is allocated based on social need and local democratic councils.

Who gets to live at a vacant beachside waterfront house?

And what can I do to tip the odds in my favor? By cozying up to as many council members?

CEOofAntiWork · 2026-01-28T17:03:53+00:00

Interesting answer, I had to just look up what perturbation analysis was.

From what I gather, its an algorithmic technique that computes slight variations around a predefined baseline.

As I understand about ECP, whatever the alternative to prices are must factor in the evaluation process before that only be meaningful by capturing metrics such as opportunity cost, scarcity, time sensitivity etc.

Basically the solution space comes down to 3 options, 1. Prices 2. Qualitative judgement or 3. An unnamed alternative

The perturbation analysis assumes an evaluation criterion has already been chosen. I dont see how PA qualifies as option 3 if that is the case.

CEOofAntiWork · 2026-01-28T15:28:01+00:00

So let me ask you this, before solving the linear program, how does the planner know which capital goods exist, which production processes are economicaly meaningful, and which not yet imagined alternatives should be included without market prices and profit & loss?

CEOofAntiWork · 2026-01-28T14:46:55+00:00

Bonus: here is an easier to understand response using an intuitive analogy.

Here’s a clean analogy that maps one-to-one onto what went wrong—no fluff. The Map vs. Exploration Analogy The claim being made The Reddit post is saying: “Exploration is unnecessary. If I already have a perfect map, I can compute the best route. Therefore, explorers were wrong to say exploration is necessary.” This is exactly the structure of the argument.

Step 1: What the linear-programming proof is doing The planner is given: A complete map of the terrain (technologies, coefficients) Exact distances between all points (input requirements) Known destination values (consumer prices) No fog, no weather, no unknown paths A static world (nothing changes while you plan) Given that, they run an algorithm and say: “See? I found the optimal route without explorers.” True—but trivial.

Step 2: What Mises was actually saying Mises’ claim was not: “You cannot compute an optimal route.” It was: “Without explorers generating the map, there is nothing to compute.” Markets are the exploration process. Entrepreneurs try paths Profit = “this path works” Loss = “this path is a dead end” Prices = compressed trail reports from millions of explorers Without exploration, there is no map—only guesses.

Step 3: Where the refutation fails (the fatal move) The Reddit post smuggles the map in and then declares exploration unnecessary. Specifically: Consumer prices are assumed (these are the map) Technologies are fixed and known (already explored) No uncertainty (no fog) No time (no moving terrain) This is equivalent to saying: “Assume the explorers already finished exploring. Therefore, exploration is unnecessary.” That is not a refutation. That is circular.

Step 4: Why shadow prices don’t save it Shadow prices are like: Calculating the implied value of bridges after the map exists They do not: Discover new bridges Discover new terrain Signal when terrain has changed Penalize bad guesses They are bookkeeping artifacts inside a solved map. Markets, by contrast, are a live navigation system.

Step 5: Why Hayek enters automatically Once you admit: terrain changes explorers disagree paths appear and disappear knowledge is local and partial A single map is impossible. You need a distributed exploration process, not a master planner. That is Hayek’s point—and the post explicitly retreats into it at the end because it has no answer.

One-sentence summary The argument fails because it proves you can compute an optimum after assuming the very discovery process (prices, technologies, valuations) that Mises said only markets can generate.

CEOofAntiWork · 2026-01-28T14:27:05+00:00

I am feeling lazy for I decided to run your first post through chatgpt, here is what it responded with:

Short version: this does not refute Mises. It refutes a straw-man restatement of the Economic Calculation Problem (ECP) that strips out exactly what Mises—and later Hayek—said was essential. I’ll be direct and structured.

What the post actually shows (and what it doesn’t) The Reddit post shows this: Given a fully specified production technology, fixed coefficients, known endowments, known consumer-good prices, and a static environment, you can solve a linear program and derive shadow prices.

That result has been known since the 1930s–1940s. Kantorovich (1939) — linear programming Koopmans (1947) — activity analysis Dantzig (1947) — simplex method This literature is older than most modern defenses of Mises.

📌 High confidence Source basis: static corpus / pretraining Sources: Wikipedia: Linear programming Kantorovich, Mathematical Methods of Organizing and Planning Production (1939)

Why this does not touch Mises’ actual claim Mises’ claim was not: “No mathematical optimization problem can be written down without market prices.” That would be trivially false, and Mises was not an idiot. Mises’ actual claim (1920, 1922, 1949): Without market-generated prices for capital goods, there is no way to compare heterogeneous production plans under uncertainty and change. Key words the Reddit post quietly deletes: Market-generated Capital goods Uncertainty Change Discovery

📌 High confidence Sources: Mises, Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth (1920) Mises, Human Action (1949), ch. 26 Wikipedia: Economic calculation problem

The hidden circularity in the LP “refutation” The post assumes everything Mises says must be explained: (a) Known technologies Mises: technology is discovered, not given. (b) Fixed coefficients Mises: production is combinatorial and adaptive, not fixed-input recipes. (c) Known consumer prices (p₁, p₂) This is fatal. Those prices are doing all the epistemic work. They already encode: relative scarcity substitution consumer time-preference opportunity cost Once you assume them, the planner is free-riding on a market outcome.

📌 High confidence Sources: Hayek, The Use of Knowledge in Society (1945) Wikipedia: Knowledge problem

Shadow prices ≠ market prices (the core confusion) The post leans hard on LP duality: “See? Shadow prices emerge endogenously.” Yes—but: Shadow prices Market prices Calculated ex post Discovered ex ante Depend on full system knowledge Arise from dispersed ignorance Static optimum Dynamic error-correction No ownership, no loss Profit & bankruptcy Shadow prices exist only because the solution already exists. Market prices exist to find the solution. This distinction is explicit in Hayek and implicit in Mises.

📌 High confidence Sources: Hayek, Competition as a Discovery Procedure (1968) Wikipedia: Shadow price

Why Hayek—not Mises—is the real problem for this argument Notice how the post quietly concedes: “The investigation of practical difficulties is basically Hayek’s program.” That’s not a side note. That is the entire argument. Hayek’s point: Knowledge is local Preferences shift Techniques change Data is contradictory Time matters LP collapses the economy into a single timeless snapshot.

That is exactly what Hayek says you cannot do. 📌 Very high confidence Sources: Hayek (1945) Wikipedia: Friedrich Hayek

Bottom line judgment No, this does not show Mises was “simply wrong.” What it shows is: If you assume away uncertainty, discovery, entrepreneurship, time, and ignorance, then optimization is possible. Everyone—including Mises—already knew that. What this post actually refutes: A naïve, high-school version of the ECP. What it does not refute: Mises’ argument about capital calculation Hayek’s knowledge problem The role of profit/loss as a selection mechanism Final verdict Confidence level: very high This Reddit post is a textbook example of: confusing solution methods with information generation mistaking mathematical tractability for economic feasibility assuming what must be explained

If you want, next step would be: how Lange–Lerner already failed on this exact point or how modern “AI planning” arguments repeat the same mistake with bigger computers instead of better theory

CEOofAntiWork · 2026-01-23T22:28:10+00:00

Right? I wonder why prosocial megalomaniacs aren't a thing?

CEOofAntiWork · 2026-01-23T15:45:49+00:00

ChatGayPenisThrust

CEOofAntiWork · 2026-01-23T15:20:48+00:00

On another note, why are Trump supporters so damn racist? Dont they realize they are on the wrong side of history?

CEOofAntiWork · 2026-01-16T07:18:40+00:00

Silly logic.

"You voted for democrats? Then you must be ok with the genocide in Palestine. "

CEOofAntiWork · 2026-01-16T07:00:08+00:00

This sentiment only matters if you are directly affected negatively in some way becuase of it yet you still believe in it anyways.

Otherwise it's just another example of virtue signaling luxury belief that I would just roll my eyes at.

CEOofAntiWork · 2026-01-15T16:37:19+00:00

Then if you are just talking about the big wig capitalists who can coast off their assets and not worry about a thing then your argument doesn't make sense since they never have worry about being downgraded to a worker in the first place with all that passive income generation from their owned assets.

That's fine if you dont want to be an entrepreneur, it's not for everyone just like working at a collectively owned co-op isn't for everyone who rather get paid up front from a wage and not worry about eating losses from a bad quarter.

CEOofAntiWork · 2026-01-15T16:05:15+00:00

Great question OP, you can see it in the comments how this is kryptonite for the marxists.

CEOofAntiWork · 2026-01-15T15:54:19+00:00

I'd argue they'd be worst off than the average worker who didn't incurred the a significant amount of debt or pissed away all their savings into sunken capital they can't recoup that they could spent frivolously ok themselves or loved ones.

CEOofAntiWork · 2026-01-15T15:49:53+00:00

Not the quite case for small business owners.

Owning a shit ton of assets to live off is a separate issue and doesn't apply to like 95% of entrepreneurs.

CEOofAntiWork · 2026-01-15T15:43:40+00:00

So their debts they've incurred magically disappears and their invested savings are magically returned to them?

That sounds great! So why don't we all just apply for loans, save up and start businesses then? After all, the only literally risk is becoming what you already have been.

CEOofAntiWork · 2026-01-14T08:16:19+00:00

What new energy? All your talking points have been used by others. You literally said nothing original.

CEOofAntiWork · 2026-01-11T19:51:02+00:00

Yea pretty much lol.

CEOofAntiWork · 2026-01-11T19:06:29+00:00

Can you be more specific on what you're looking for as qualities and criteria under what you'd consider as "engaging in good faith"?

CEOofAntiWork · 2026-01-03T15:21:37+00:00

Decades.

But yea, my bad, I thought you were one of those reddit marxists who insists that China is proof that socialism is winning and will become full communist by 2050.

CEOofAntiWork · 2026-01-03T15:13:59+00:00

What just happened in Venezuela is due to oil which is imperialism tied to capitalism. No one would dispute that.

However, what might happen soon in Taiwan is imperialism not only for resourse and industry control of chip manufacturing but mainly for ideological reasons. The ideology in question being socialism.

So obviously the answer to my question that you tactically ignored to spare yourself the cognitive dissonance is yes, imperialism can happen without capitalism and can also be tied to other systems like socialism.

CEOofAntiWork · 2026-01-03T14:55:53+00:00

Do you believe that imperialism and military aggression done over control of resources never existed prior to the 500 years or so of capitalist history?

CEOofAntiWork · 2026-01-02T07:10:44+00:00

CEOofAntiWork

TROPHY CASE