third world infrastructure

these poor third world areas need basic infrastructure.  they need communication, roads, plumbing, electricity..  probably in that order of precedence too.

communication can be handled by solar powered cell towers and cheap cell phones.  eventually that can upgrade to high bandwidth wireless data networks.

roads, well dirt roads are good enough.  you just need a crew and equipment for clearing roads, and a supply chain for them to sustain their bodies and equipment.  and a planning team to determine what routes are most important.

plumbing includes both water supply and drainage.

on the supply side, rainwater harvesting allows distributed access without requiring a distribution network to be installed.  perhaps small communities can install small distribution networks, with a centralized rainwater processing station, to centralize and minimize maintenance requirements.  the fixtures themselves can probably be easily manufactured locally using clay.

on the drainage side, a small community distribution network may again be workable.  another option may be a centralized toilet location for a small area.  so showers, tubs, and faucets could be drained into the ground, and for toilet use, you go to the public, central depot.  this depot could include either a simple sanitary disposal system, or possibly a power generation plant.  you know, since you can burn shit to make energy (isn't this common knowledge?)

and finally electricity.  running wires everywhere is the damn problem.  energy generation sites are typically few and large, like a large hydroelectric dam, or coal plant.

one possible solution is again, small community distribution with a small central plant.  for this, you'd need a constant supply of whatever feeds the power plant (poop, coal, etc) which will likely cause the electricity availability to be unpredictable.  this is not acceptable.  a central solar generation system, with batteries and maintenance, might work, but the capital investment may be too high.  (although solar panel prices continue to plummet)

wireless power distribution would be ideal, as a few power generation plants could feed multiple communities at a low installation cost.  each community would have a reception station that distributes power locally.  unfortunately, as far as i know, wireless power distribution is an undeveloped technology.  my guess is the technology is so easily converted into an extremely powerful, versatile weapon, that its development is stifled by.. who knows.  which is a shame, and may not be true.. but i wouldn't be surprised if it was.. power is heat, after all.

electricity seems the most difficult to solve.  i wonder if you can use streams/rivers to distribute alternating current?  water is a conductor, after all.  perhaps not terribly efficient.. and could it pose a danger to those using the water?  i suspect it can be done safely.  i recall pictures of Tesla holding a lightbulb, with the power travelling through his body to power it.  perhaps some way of using resonance as a key to unlock access to a distributed power source..?  i'm not sure.. makes we wish i'd gone through and studied electronics engineering further than two years..

po people

we shouldn't be giving money to poor people in third world nations, we should be using them.

most people in 1st world countries are "used" by govts and corps, and that's where our wealth is derived.  the key is to use these poor people, but keep the derived wealth in their country.  instead it seems a bunch of 1st world corps are the only ones using these people.  and guess where the stockholders live..

you'll never inject enough wealth through charity, you need to build a healthy economy..

26 manz

tuesday, i ran sprints again, 1 minute sprint, 1 minute walk, repeat.  not sure how far/long i went, i made a small loop.  maybe six repetitions?

this morning i ran for 26 mins.  i would make a quick google earth estimate of distance, but it doesn't want to run now.  google, you suck.

23 minz

i only ran for 23 minutes this morning, but it looks like i ran just under 3 miles, so my pace is much better than my 24 minute run.  yep.  that's all.

poor attempt at economic modeling

our economy has a single kind of coin.  give every person on the planet ten of these coins.

pretend every person has a job, and produces some service or good.  pretend every person wants/needs ten services/goods per day.  for each of these things, they pay one coin.

imagine after one day, a person has spent ten coins, and earned one coin.  now the person only has 1 coin for the next day, so they are broke.  everyone is broke.  this economy fails.  obviously, a person needs to earn as much as they spend every day for the economy to succeed.

so pretend again a person spends 10 coins on 10 things per day, but this time the person earns 10 coins the same day.  now this economy will succeed.  if every good/service sells for 1 coin, then each person must sell to ten people a day.

so our successful economy is each person buys 10 things/day, and sells 10 things/day.

now, let's pretend, instead of goods and services, the things are simply widgets.  assume a person survives and is happy simply by consuming 10 widgets/day.  then this system works perfectly.  everyone is buying & selling 10 widgets/day.  no one gains more than the other, no one has less than the other.

in this system, we can initialize the economy at the outset by issuing 10 widgets per person, and then it will sustain itself.

-- good/service life cycle --

what if the widgets don't last forever, though?  what if they slowly get used up, and need to be replaced?  (you know, like any physical object in the real world.)  let's assume a widget is all used up after 10 days.  so, on average, 1 out of 10 widgets must be replaced every day.

a simple solution is before any widget is sold, it is inspected.  if it's no longer good, then at no cost the holder throws it away and creates a new widget.  then that widget is sold.  this keeps the system running just as it was before, same number of buys & sells per day per person.

but, we assume a widget can be discarded and created at no cost.  we know by analogy that no physical object is neither thrown away nor created at zero cost.  these both cost money.

let's explore a possible solution.  we can allow the price of a widget to decline as it ages.  say the price of the new widget is 1 coin.  the next sale it's 0.9 coin.  then 0.8 coin. etc.  until it's bought for 0.1 coin by the last person.

in this system, that last person got a great deal.  they have a working widget, and only paid 0.1 coin!  however, once they are done using it for the day, it's too old to be sold the next day.  so, now they must expend 0.9 coin to throw out the old widget and produce a new one.  then they sell the new widget for 1 coin, and recoup their initial 0.1 coin expenditure.

now, what about all the other sales during the life of the widget except the aforementioned case?  each time, the widget is sold for 0.1 coin less than it was purchased.  statistically, each person will experience this 0.1 coin loss 9/10 days, and then will make a new coin 1/10 days.  if the profit of the 1/10 days covered the cumulative loss of the other 9/10 days, then it would equalize the losses and gains.

this means when a widget is purchased for 0.1 coin, thrown away, recreated, and sold for 1 coin, the profit must be 0.9 coin -- thus again, logic says the coin must be discarded and created for free!  this possible solution will not work.

perhaps we can redefine how coins are exchanged for widgets to clarify things.

every day, per person:

• 9 used widgets are sold
• 1 new widget is sold
• 1 new widget is created
• 1 old widget is thrown away
• 10 widgets are purchased

simple enough, once we define the system in terms of time.

so the price of all these transactions must sum to zero for balance to be maintained.

• 9 old sold, (+wallet)
• 1 new sold, (+wallet)
• 1 new created (-wallet)
• 1 old trashed (-wallet)
• 10 bought (-wallet)

in other words:

• 10 sold = 1 created + 1 trashed + 10 bought

and we can see the average purchase price must be less than the average sale price.  this is a problem.  for any given transaction, the purchase price is the same as the sale price.  that is, both buyer and seller agree to the same number.  if every person is selling to every person buying, then the average sale price must equal the average buy price.

once again, logic tells us the creation & destruction of widgets must occur for free.  but this isn't practical.

a solution to this dilemma would be to balance the equation:

• 10 sold + ??? = 1 created + 1 trashed + 10 bought

which can be reduced to

• ??? = 1 created + 1 trashed

sales of widgets, as shown above in the per person budget, adds money to a person's wallet.  so the ??? in our above equation must add money to a person's wallet.

how about each person performs the service of creating and trashing a widget for another person.  so now:

every day, per person:

• 9 old sold, (+wallet)
• 1 new sold, (+wallet)
• 1 new creation performed (+wallet)
• 1 new trash performed (+wallet)
• 1 new creation purchased (-wallet)
• 1 old trash purchased (-wallet)
• 10 bought (-wallet)

now this fixes the math, but it's silly.  why pay another person to do a service you'll also do for someone else in the same day?  just do it yourself.  hence, creation & trashing is done by yourself, and must be done for free!! argh.

conclusion

free exchange of widgets is simple to model economically.  but as soon as you start throwing out & creating new widgets, i run into problems.  it seems, since all monetary exchanges involve equal prices on the part of the buyer and seller, that there is no "extra cash" in the system to create new widgets or throw away old ones.

i think my model is flawed.  especially considering, in the real world economy, very few physical products are exchanged much.  most products are created, sold, used, and trashed.

the sprint

this morning, instead of running for X number of minutes, i decided to do a sprint routine.  my goal was to sprint, all-out, as fast as i can, for 1 minute, then walk for 1 minute, and repeat.  10 times total.

i think i only managed perhaps 6 rounds of that.  my hamstrings were extremely tight by the time i got back to the house.  i haven't sprinted like that in a while, so it wasn't very easy.  i ran out of steam pretty fast...

oh, and monday i ran 22 minutes and wednesday i ran 24 minutes.  but my distance didn't seem to increase much, my pace just slowed.  hence the whole sprinting thing...

your change, sir

i like paying with cash when i buy stuff.  it's fun because i can often times slightly confuse the cashier.  say the total comes to $18.07.  i might pay with a $20, three $1s, and a dime.  this is when the cashier pauses for a moment, wondering why the heck i gave her all this excessive cash.  a twenty would've been plenty.

but then they plug the numbers into the register, and it spits out $5.03 in change.  and maybe perhaps, the cashier figures out that i didn't want the $1s, nor the 93 cents in coinage.  i'm not sure how many figure that out.  but it's fun nonetheless. :)