#possibly unwarranted optimism

[kalinara]

So, I saw someone else's post pointing out the weird inconsistency with the way the Uncanny X-Team and the regular X-Team interact. How it starts out fairly pleasant but then, kind of out of the blue, the Uncanny team starts acting really hostile toward Scott and his team.

(Including a really nasty comment from Logan, and it's like, dude, weren't you fucking on the Moon, not that long ago?)

Meanwhile, on Scott's end of things, he's basically being polite, civil, and trying to adjust his plans to accommodate them.

I don't disagree with that post at all, but I didn't want to hijack it with my own thoughts, so this is my little bit of meta.

I admit, I've not caught up on a lot of the Krakoa stuff yet, but I definitely agree that this is inconsistent with the dynamics that I saw in those issues.

But it is definitely consistent with everything BEFORE Krakoa. And bizarrely, that makes me a bit optimistic. I remember, a long time ago, writing this rant about how consistently inconsistent the in universe treatment of Scott Summers was prior to his death. How everyone, under the pen of multiple authors, in multiple lines, seemed to fairly consistently believe the worst of him when his behavior would be completely opposite to their expectation.

I said then that it really did seem like it's building somewhere. And I'm cautiously thinking that it might still be. Rosenberg's X-Men, which I enjoyed very much despite its general pre-Krakoa bleakness, started out with Scott and Logan in a surprisingly okay place but things seemed to fall apart pretty dramatically and for not a lot of reason.

And honestly, I still can't quite get over Jono basically telling Scott that he hated him while he died. That was intense and singularly horrible.

But then everyone reunited and we pretty much got Krakoa right after that, and everything was different and good and bad and fucked up in all sorts of brand new ways. And I figured, okay, I was wrong, it really wasn't going anywhere. It was just weirdness that, if it ever had meant something, doesn't apply now.

But we're back to basics. We're back to the old patterns. We're back to Wolverine and whatever team represents the school and the "Xavier style" of mutant ideology against Scott's black ops "Magneto style" aggressive protection. And again, we have a Scott who doesn't seem to buy into that conflict while everyone around him does.

I had a theory briefly that the sheer irrational reaction of everyone around him was because Scott, as the Phoenix, right after killing Xavier, somehow mind-whammied the world to feel exactly what he did: a deep love and idealization for Charles Xavier that, while occasionally disappointed, never truly faltered, and a deep and complete loathing of one Scott Summers.

I still think that theory works, and might well explain why no one seems to remember that they were pretty fucking mad at Xavier at the end of the Krakoa stuff (with Logan actually trying to kill him.)

The other theory I have is simpler though, which is that Scott ends up being the focal point for all of his fellows grief, despair, and helpless, pointless anger because they think he can handle it.

If Charles Xavier is the spirit of the Dream, then Scott Summers is the embodiment of the X-Men. (I think there's even a point in one of the Captain Krakoa issues where we're told that "I am the X-Men" was basically his campaign speech at one of the Hellfire Galas). And as such, he's always going to be there: strong, implacable, steadfast and invulnerable to whatever they send his way.

And that leads to something really interesting, because as we've seen in X-Men #3. He's NOT. And that's not really surprising, it's not like Scott has ever been a paragon of good mental health. But the panic attack is new. And assuming that it's actually a panic attack and not some indicator of possession or powers going out of control or something, then it's a vulnerability that he might not be able to hide.

And that makes me think we might, FINALLY, see an actual resolution to this decades long thread.

And if not, well, if I didn't enjoy watching Scott Summers suffer, I wouldn't be reading X-Men comics.

(Also, Jean's actually alive now. She's in space at the moment, IIRC, but I really don't think she's going to tolerate this bullshit for too much longer, if and when she finally notices it happening.)

[skpct]

Thoughts-Time to wake up, Neo.

This is a new section I’m doing. The trail is a good place for reflection, so sometimes I have thoughts, and sometimes I write them down. It’s also a good opportunity to post some more pictures; Tumblr only lets you upload 10 per post on Mobile, so I have to leave some on the cutting room floor.

Back in civilization, I would check the news constantly. I was always aware of everything that was happening all the time. Now I’m not, because I live in the woods, and there’s not much cell service out here. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

My impulse is to say it is a good thing to be disconnected. I think it’s sort of a hip thing to say. “I’m off the grid! I’m disconnected! I’m reconnecting with nature!” I do feel that way, and there are certain freedoms and benefits out here. I’m less resentful towards the world in general, for instance. I’d see news that made me feel sad or angry, and I couldn’t do anything about it. That made me resentful, and it’s nice to not have to deal with that. It’s not all positive, though.

This is a super extreme example, but if North Korea launched a nuclear missile at Seattle while I was way out on the trail, I wouldn’t learn about it for several days. Sure, I wouldn’t be able to do anything about it, but it would be nice to know that my home and family are gone. That’s kinda dark, and I’ll move on, but you get what I’m saying.

People expect you to be connected. I ran into some service right before I got to Acton, and a text came in. It was from my old professor. They weren’t able to reach me though email, I hadn’t been checking it. A student was running a story on my professor or something and needed me to sign a release form for a photo I was in. They had sent me a two emails, and the second one was definitely pretty frantic, asking me to please sign the photo release form as soon as possible. It may be positive for me personally to be disconnected, but there’s no question: it caused a student distress. I was a student not long ago, and I tell you, they don’t need any additional stress. Sure, I don’t technically owe that student anything, but we all owe each other kindness. It’s a reality that in the modern world, being in touch is a component of that, and I’m not in touch.

One thing I’ve noticed is that nothing really happens. When you stare at the news constantly, there’s an illusion of something greater. However, when you only see it once in a while, it’s different. It’s like regardless of what happens today or tomorrow, life goes on. When I took that step back, it felt like the world was moving in a more positive direction than I thought. Or maybe that optimism is totally unwarranted and everything is terrible. Who knows?

I don’t have a grand thesis here, I’m afraid. In some ways, I’m unquestionably better off. But in other ways, things are worse. Maybe when I come back, I’ll have a completely different worldview. Maybe not. We shall see. Okay, thoughts over.

[mitigatedchaos]

[ me ]

Ah, here we go. Rationalism is not a cult and Yudkowsky is not a cult leader, but it contains some tools one could use to build a cult and it's reported that someone did do that.

[ anon ]

From what I've seen of this cult, it looks like the most important Rationalist assets it used were the people, not the ideas - it treated Rationalist communities as a good hunting grounds to find susceptible people.

I haven't reviewed the reports myself because that's not my "job," per se. I'll agree that the Rationalist population has people who are susceptible to certain cult tactics.

I was going to do a quick and dirty ideological functional decomposition on some common Rationalist tropes (not my usual target!), but in terms of risks from ideological mechanics, the core thing for the Rationalists is that all formal systems are fundamentally incomplete and break down outside a given range of underlying conditions.

Maximization/Optimization pushes the conditions towards these kinds of asymptotic positions where the formal system is either less connected to reality, or becomes undefined.

(It's possible that all ideological systems contain some fundamental core loop, but not enough study of the functional components of ideological systems has been done to determine this.)

Rather than the circular logic of more conventional systems ("denying that you have male fragility is classic fragile male behavior!") though, most of the body of risk in Rationalism likely lies in the asymptotes where the proposed underlying conditions exceed those of appropriate epistemic humility for a human being - taking ideas too seriously, shutting up and multiplying the wrong numbers or numbers too wildly imprecise to be used in practice, acting on the basis of thought experiments devised to test the limits of ethics with an unwarranted degree of certainty, and so on.

For instance, just because God can see every possible vector combination of realities doesn't mean those realities actually exist. As far as I'm aware, the Many Worlds Interpretation hasn't allowed us to interact with any other "branches," so we have to weigh the (substantial) possibility that our physics about it is just incorrect.

But if someone can be talked into believing in "quantum immortality," in which reality branches and their experience is continuous only with branches in which they survive, they can be convinced of insane ideas like playing the lottery with a commitment to shoot themselves if they lose - with only their gut, which they may have been told not to trust, telling them not to do it.

Lately I've been thinking in terms of text as having "weights." As in, "take this only 80% seriously." I suspect a lot of Rationalist thinking is useful in the 30-80% range, can't quite make up for shortfalls in underlying intelligence, and gets toxic above 80% and dangerous above 90%.

[sleepthiefblog]

The Sun - Wheel of Fortune - The Magician

The Sun, The Wheel and The Magician share a concern with and expression of the importance of time and change. The Sun adds its roundness and constant periodicity to the circularity and endless revolutions of The Wheel. In this, they share the femininity of cycles and dependable repetition. The Sun adds the linear directness and the overwhelming power of its rays to the perfect focus and unbending intent of The Magician. In this, they share the masculinity of limitless energy and unwavering certainty.

The Sun reveals the shape and nature of everything, and fills whatever it touches with confidence and energy.

The Wheel experiences and accepts everything, and is excited by whatever happens to it.

The Magician manipulates everything with skill and intention, awakening and enlivening whatever he pays attention to.

The Sun is clear, steady, bright and simple. It dispels fear and doubt with its presence, lending energy and optimism to the task at hand. Its rising is the source of all optimism and brings with it the joy of awakening and continued existence. It is the certainty at the center of things, the clear awareness of what is and is not. The motto of The Sun is "I am." The job of The Sun is to be the engine that turns all the wheels of the world.

The Wheel is restless, driven to move ceaselessly from place to place, from drama to drama. At once actor and audience, it is simultaneously involved and detached. At the mercy of what it cannot foresee or prevent, it alternates between exhilaration and lassitude, high spirits and depression, good and bad fortune. Aware of the patterns and repetitions that link seemingly random events, it is unimpressed by them and is capable of patience. The motto of The Wheel is "Wheeee!" The job of The Wheel is to enjoy, both the intensity of the unpredictable moment and the serenity of grand and dependable cycles.

The Magician makes things appear and disappear like rabbits out of a hat. With focused awareness and skill, he opens up possibilities and closes them. Graceful, eloquent and logical, he charms the willing and persuades the unwilling. Armed with unbending intent, he approaches obstacles with serene confidence and faith in his powers. His motto is "I will," and he discounts the possibility of failure. The job of The Magician is to make intention into reality, no matter how unlikely or improbable, and in the process, to amaze all who watch him do it.

Unintegrated and imperfectly realized, The Sun's directness can cast shadows as intense as its light. It can be pitiless and absolute, dismissing what it cannot see as worthless, foolish or insane, and it can be an implacable enemy of whatever is hesitant or weak. Unable to abide a secret, it can be indiscreet. Impatient with frailty or innuendo, it can fail to see the humor in a joke.

The Wheel can be fatalistic and melodramatic. Helpless in the face of events, it feels alternately victimized by circumstance and unaccountably lucky. It accepts what happens as destiny, fate or fortune. It experiences everything that happens to it as intensely important, but with no sense of control, it seeks reassurance from seers and oracles, and believes what they say. When things are going well, it hopes that they will continue. When things go badly, it waits for them to get better. The Wheel lives on hopes and fears, guides itself by past experience, and never stops moving.

The Magician can be willful and petty. A controlling perfectionist, he can demand the impossible from himself and others. Given to self-deceit and out-and-out lies, he pretends to powers he does not possess in order to enhance his image and instill unwarranted confidence in others.

The Sun, Wheel and Magician form the sides of a triangle, the only triumvirate in a universe of pairs. It contains that universe's only nonlinear interior space, a place of privacy, complexity and reserve.

Together, they coruscate — unpredictably glistening, flashing, darkening, reflecting and revealing, multiplying the unexpected and expanding the boundaries of the known and normal by a whole dimension.

The Tarot School

what are y’all’s tarot birth cards?

mine are the tower and the chariot

[freenewsreport]

Navigating Tax Traps: Definitive Strategies for Tax Efficiency

Mike Warburton Taxation is a phenomenon that inevitably permeates every business and individual's financial life; however, most persons or businesses are unable to steer around pitfalls and capitalize on opportunities due to deep-seated aspects of tax regulations. Not to be outdone, such advice will help equip taxpayers to navigate common tax challenges for improved financial decisions.

Understanding Loan Notes and Shares: Avoiding Misclassification

Key Differences

Loans are debt securities, and shares are company equities. Misclassifying these securities gives rise to major tax liabilities, including:

Unwarranted Capital Gains Tax: The classification of loan notes as shares will expose a person to unexpected CGT

Tax Penalties: Classified the wrong way may also attract tax penalties upon review by the taxing authorities

Recommendations

Clarify Instruments: keep loan notes and shares distinguished on paper

Professional Consultation: seek professional tax counsels to get this right and report appropriately.

Family Care Payments: Structuring for Tax Compliance

Implications of Informal Arrangements

Paying relatives for caregiving can lead to unintended tax consequences: Income Tax Liabilities: Payments may be considered taxable income for the recipient.

Disallowed Deductions: Informal agreements may fail to meet tax deduction criteria.

Optimizing Family Care Payments

Formalize Agreements: Draft written contracts outlining payment terms.

Maintain Records: Document payments and agreements to comply with tax regulations.

Explore Tax Reliefs: Investigate allowances applicable to caregiving expenses.

Closing the Tax Gap: Narrowing the Gap

What is the Tax Gap?

Tax gap is simply a measure of the difference between taxes owed and taxes collected. It includes unpaid taxes, evasion, and avoidance. Mitigation Measures

Awareness Campaigns: Governments must raise taxpayer awareness.

Increased Enforcement: Crackdowns on evasion and avoidance schemes are effective.

Individual Responsibility: Taxpayers must be aware of their duties and avoid dubious schemes.

Self-Assessment Mistakes to Avoid and Do Right

Common Error

Late Filings: The taxpayer incurs charges if he does not file on time.

Wrong Records: Mistakes in record-making send messages to the auditors.

Cost Underestimation: Tax liability goes unaccounted for in budgeting, and thus raises financial stress.

Solutions for Accurate Self-Assessment

Maintain Financial Records: Accounting software should be used for errorless record-keeping.

Seek Experts: Tax consultants make it less daunting.

Budgeting: Estimate potential liability and reserve for unexpected expenses.

Preparing for Capital Gains Tax Reforms

Possible Changes

CGT can be taxed in a similar bracket as income tax to help government revenues.

Actionable Guidance

Review Portfolios: Evaluate investment properties for the potential of monetary benefits.

Look at Early Disposals: Sell before interest rate rises can 'lock in' current tax benefits.

Reliefs Available: Take advantage of exemptions to reduce liabilities.

Overpayment Relief: A Missed Opportunity

Overpayment Relief Explained

Taxpayers have a right to recover overpaid taxes because of mistakes or changes in legislation. How to Claim Relief

Make Formal Claims: To HMRC by sending all relevant evidence.

Act Now: Applications have to be submitted usually within four years of the relevant tax year.

Double-Check Your Facts: Getting things right minimizes the risk of delay or refusal.

Rich Pensioners and Tax Policy Changes Barriers

Older, more affluent savers are being targeted for tax increases. Pension Wealth Management

Spread Around: Invest in tax-efficient accounts as widely diversified as possible.

Make Use of Allowances: Utilize all exemption and relief available.

Seek Expert Help: Professional professionals can spot untapped opportunities in tax efficiency.

Savers and Changes in Law

Tax Law Changes Impact Frequent changes in tax provisions can eat into savings if not actively managed. Protecting Savings

ISAs: Protect savings from tax using Individual Savings Accounts.

Pension Contributions: These can provide substantial tax reliefs.

Keep Up to Date: Watch for legislative change to adjust responses.

Watching HMRC's Changing Mind

A New Way of Thinking

HMRC's changing their policy of strict enforcement does little for charitable allowances.

Taxpayer Advice

Know New Regulations: Keep track of what HMRC wants.

Maintain Transparency: Prevent liability and ensure full compliance.

Document Thoroughly: It is very important to document in depth in case of a dispute or audit.

Income Tax and National Insurance: Can the Two be Integrated?

Challenges

The integration of the two systems fails at political will and structural reasons. Possible Merits

Simplified Reporting: A single system simplifies reporting.

Fairness is Improved: Harmonization results in balancing out treatments of taxes.

Sale of Properties and Tax Difficulty

Important Issues

Resale of property may involve some very complex tax rules, especially if portions of it are used for business.

Tax-Smart Strategies for Selling

Keep Dual-Use Records: Treat personal and business use of property separately.

Claim Exemptions: Take advantage of PPR relief where permitted.

Plan Ahead: Plan in advance to mitigate tax impact when selling a property.

Conclusion

Navigating the tax landscape is about vigilance, adaptability, and informed decision making. The understanding of the more essential tax issues-from CGT reforms to self-assessment pitfalls-positions taxpayers well for long-term financial stability. Proper planning and professional guidance help individuals and businesses alike turn into potential tax traps opportunities for growth.

[fleetwellwestlake]

Why You Need Professional AC Maintenance Services in Westlake Village

As the mercury levels are higher during summer seasons, proper air conditioning plays an essential role in managing your house. Just purchasing an air conditioner unit, however, is not good enough. Regular air conditioner service can keep it in optimum operating conditions and make sure that its lifespan is optimal. It can save you a lot of discomfort from scorching heat along with unnecessary repair costs in Westlake Village.

Advantages of Air Conditioner Maintenance

Improved Efficiency

One of the important benefits of regular air conditioner servicing is energy efficiency. Debris and grime do collect in your AC if you do not service them periodically, which reduces airflow within the system and makes it harder to cool your environment. This increases your power bill and also causes unwarranted stress on other parts of the system. Most professional services include deep cleaning and inspection that ensure restoring efficiency to your unit and saving you money spent on energy costs.

Extending Long Life

Just like all other appliance types, air conditioning demands some form of care so it can last longer or have an extensive lifespan while also running its functions within expectations. When properly well taken care of, systems are bound to last long to as much as 15 years and to 20 years at a stretch whereas total disregard would limit the extent to a period much sooner in terms of a lifespan than would be possible. These would have already been treated through prompt service given by some skilled technician with the potential in his service.

Enhanced Air Quality

Air conditioning not only cools your house but also affects indoor air quality. Dust and other particles get caught within the AC system, which turns into a haven for nasty air. It causes significant health issues for people having allergies or respiratory issues. Through proper air conditioner maintenance and replacing and cleaning of filters, it keeps clean and healthy air inside your home.

Emergency Preparedness

Regular service will help detect any problems before they are too big of an issue. When summer temperatures are through the roof, a quick failure of an AC unit in Westlake Village will have you at your wits' end. Prearranging your routine service will ensure your technician has time to diagnose any oddity in your system, putting your mind at ease knowing that when you do need your unit, it'll be in perfect working condition.

Why Fleetwell?

Fleetwell specializes in providing premium air conditioner service in Westlake Village. Our technicians focus on guaranteeing that your system functions at its best. We give maintenance plans to fit all our customer's needs; it includes inspections, cleaning, and repairs.

Don't wait till your air conditioner breaks down – make regular service a top priority to keep your house cool and comfortable all through the summer. Call Fleetwell today to book an appointment for your air conditioner service and enjoy peace of mind with a well-functioning system!

[meloinaw]

Just Proper And Accurate Details About κατασκευή e-shop

Web design may be the method in writing internet to compliment vacationers along the length of an excursion your complies with times master's goals, in particular helping to make investments or maybe signing up for assistance. Web site designers start using cosmetic materials particularly figures, colors and textures to speak about their note * normally producing an artistic which usually brings to mind brand's photograph as well as feel : to make sure a particular user-friendly and also innate consumer experience on the website.

Web-designers deal with re-decorating articles, design, together with pattern of web sites so it will be easier for site find their way around rapidly and locate info very fast. Of doing this, they use typography, shades palettes, along with white place and therefore plastic power structure methods conjunction with ergonomic desk ideals that will assemble connects that support a group of customers with no trouble. Cyberspace models are constantly developed by just new breakthroughs located in social media or other technological innovations which allow companies to connect along with spectators of exceptional ways that. Hence, website design will continue to adjustment as well as conform since involves such products; in spite of this, many ingredients stay repeated via all of the web design.

Web designers go with graphic chain of command combined with blueprints that point out fundamental happy to generate web much easier get through, optimizing legibility due to putting weights on text messaging in order to really along with white room charge. It's possibly that they in addition , adopt well models that happens to be straightforward for people to appreciate as you are proscribing used to remedy decals that experts claim come out almost like wording so that they can put a stop to misconceptions; make certain variety locations involve recording labels which these folks match fully.

Homepage creative designers may easily go with efficiency by utilizing imaginative disclosure designs in order to leave out unwarranted articles and other content and also with the aid of map-reading drawers you prioritized plans. They will often also use agreeable or perhaps even flexible designs which always inevitably modifications many different viewport capacities, or even convenience things by means of successfully visible responses (such as accident sales messages) that is definitely just sensible persons in small dream coupled with colorblindness.Stay up-to-date on exclusive offers for κατασκευή ιστοσελίδων – find here or visit our official platform.

The top web site designs employ assorted functional weather to mention some sort of distributor's principles, most notably photo's, ideas and also instructional videos. Secondly, sensitive artwork make sure an even user experience in gadgets however coordinating intended for search engines are needed any time prospective clients might acquire your web blog.

Site designers need to take under consideration in excess of UI together with UX the instant developing internet resources. That doctor needs to discover HTML, CSS and then ocular model lessons to allow create web which in turn work better for both personal computers and therefore phones as well and gathering Search engine hopes for the purpose of position in search results website pages.

E-shop construction website design The right e-commerce rrnternet site will likely be easy for customers to use not to mention pleasantly eye-catching, maintaining ones own recognition focused on all your brand. Website designers make use of programs to celebrate chaffing elements with regards to your blog which cause people get out of not to mention put in priority its actual biggest information and facts above the fold for best lead marketing sales into giving potential buyers. Far better is to follow the link or perhaps check out some of our police officer can i find out e-shop creation.

Equally, they will certainly create a website small uncomplicated and rewarding to mention and furthermore reply to items design and also video 1 . can in fact should certainly drive traffic in addition to build individual trustworthiness. As a final point, they choose structural announcements which will mindful clientele current items, promotions and then special deals without the need for shedding dear movie screen homes.

[vojtapetr]

Benefits You Can Easily Delight In From An Economical Microsoft Windows Activation Key

When it pertains to optimizing your Windows knowledge, a low-cost activation key may provide you more than merely cost savings. Through uncovering the possibility of authentic software application at a fraction of the rate, you not simply get your system yet also gain accessibility to a series of enhanced features. With a trusted activation procedure and continuous assistance, the benefits stretch far past the initial purchase. So, before you make your following software investment, take into consideration the benefits that a budget-friendly Microsoft Windows activation key may offer.

Advantages Of A Low-Cost Microsoft Windows Activation License Key

Price Savings

When getting a Windows key Reddit, you can easily take pleasure in considerable cost financial savings contrasted to obtaining it at full price. Choosing an activation Microsoft Windows key cheap can easily be actually a brilliant financial decision, especially for people or even businesses trying to save money without jeopardizing on the software program's functionality. By opting for a cheap Microsoft Windows key for activation, you may designate your budget plan extra effectively, allowing you to buy various other necessary tools or information.

Real Program

To make certain the legitimacy and also dependability of your software program, acquiring an economical Microsoft Windows activation key from a professional resource is actually important. When you secure a legitimate activation Windows key, you may rest ensured that your software application is actually genuine and also certainly not pirated.

A lot of consumers transform to platforms like Microsoft Windows Key Reddit to locate cost effective choices for Windows key while still guaranteeing they're authentic. By obtaining your activation key from depended on sources, you not just save money however additionally ensure that your program is going to function the right way and acquire required updates from Microsoft.

Enriched Safety Functions

Additionally, a reputable activation key guarantees that you acquire vital security patches directly from Microsoft. This regular stream of updates is actually crucial in addressing freshly found out weakness and also strengthening your system's defenses against developing cyber risks. Through keeping your Windows operating system around date with genuine activation, you dramatically reduce the opportunities of falling sufferer to cyberattacks that make use of old software program.

Reputable Activation Procedure

Purchase a respectable resource for a Windows key Reddit to make sure a reliable activation method that assures the authenticity of your software. Through acquiring from a counted on dealer, you may be certain that the activation key you acquire are going to function efficiently and firmly. Trustworthy activation procedures assist you stay clear of prospective issues like program breakdowns or even activation errors that can develop from utilizing unwarranted or questionable keys.

A respectable activation key makes certain that your Microsoft Windows program is legitimate as well as adequately accredited. This validity certainly not simply offers you satisfaction however additionally secures you from the dangers linked with using pirated or even unwarranted models of Microsoft Windows. Along with a reputable activation procedure, you may take pleasure in the full functions of your Windows operating system without thinking about encountering troubles connected to activation down the product line.

Smooth Combination With Microsoft Services

To entirely experience the benefits of an economical Windows activation key, flawlessly incorporate along with Microsoft services for enriched capability and connectivity. Through connecting your activated Windows to Microsoft services such as OneDrive, Overview, and Microsoft Workplace, you may enjoy a smooth experience all over devices. Syncing your documents with OneDrive makes sure that your essential records are actually available from anywhere, while using Overview for e-mail keeps you linked as well as managed. Microsoft Workplace combination enables you to generate, edit, and collaborate on documents effectively.

Final thought

Thus, why invest much more on a Microsoft Windows activation key when you can delight in all these advantages at a portion of the cost? Along with an economical key from a relied on resource like Windows key cheap, you can spare money, make certain credibility, improve safety, and acquire updates and also assistance. It's a great deal that offers peace of thoughts as well as a seamless Windows knowledge. Improve your system today and enjoy all these fantastic benefits.

[firstchoicekratom]

What Makes Green Malay Powder Unique in the Kratom Family?

Kratom family boasts an array of strains, each possessing unique properties. None, however, spark as much interest as the Green Malay Powder. Originating from Malaysia, this kratom variety stands out due to its unique attributes and enticing benefits. So, what truly sets Green Malay Powder apart from the rest?

A Powerful Blend of Alkaloids

All kratom strains offer an impressive spectrum of alkaloids, but Green Malay goes a step further. Its rich makeup of alkaloids like Mitragynine and 7-hydroxy mitragynine provides a harmonious blend of stimulating and relaxing effects, making it a versatile option for many kratom enthusiasts.

Longer-Lasting Effects

While the impact duration might vary among different kratom strains, Green Malay often leads the pack. Thanks to its robust and dense cell wall, the effects are released gradually over a prolonged period. This slow metabolization allows users to experience the benefits for an extended time, delivering value for every use.

Balanced Energy and Relaxation

Many turn to kratom for its stimulating or soothing effects. With Green Malay, you don't have to choose. This strain is known for its ‘balanced’ effect – it not only uplifts your energy levels but also promotes relaxation. Whether your day is geared towards productivity or unwinding, Green Malay Powder adapts to your needs.

A Natural Mood Enhancer

Life can often bring about unwarranted stress and bouts of low spirits. Green Malay Powder shines as a natural mood enhancer, helping to instill a sense of optimism and well-being. It is known to promote a positive mindset, helping you navigate through the ups and downs of everyday life with more ease.

Agreed, no strain can ace all aspects like the mighty Green Sumatra Kratom, but Green Malay certainly appeals to a wide variety of consumers due to its fascinating mix of properties.

Malay Powder is not just a kratom strain; it's an experience, a journey of well-being, and an exploration of what nature has to offer. It stands proudly as a unique member of the kratom family, offering benefits that are as extensive as they are compelling.

Perhaps it's time you explored what Green Malay Powder can do for you. With its unique features and versatile benefits, it certainly stands proud in the kratom family, proving that sometimes, the leaf can be mightier than the sum of its parts.

Ready to experience the unique journey with Malay Powder? Visit our store at First Choice Kratom, and let the exploration of well-being begin.

Your unique journey with the wonder of Kratom is merely a click away, and we’ve ensured it is as straightforward as possible. Browse through our extensive collection, place your order, and let the natural experiences come home to you. Explore. Experience. Elevate. With First Choice Kratom, embracing the best of Kratom has never been easier.

[crystalelemental]

Unit Teambuilding - Sygna Suit Red

Alright, the BP Pairs are done, and I finished the Red alt discussion. Finally I am done.

........fuck, I forgot about the grid expansions.

General Overview Not content to ruin my day once, Sygna Suit Red also gets something, in the form of his grid expansion. Thankfully, this is far, far less annoying, as DeNA seems to categorize original Kantrio more as "Free pair" than as "PokeFair," so they limited the possibilities. Unfortunately, this is my first time talking about him as a sync pair.

SS Red was the original powercreep unit. Brought about at the half-anniversary well before I was playing, he was miles ahead of everyone else. While SST Red and the new NC Red are certainly bullshit, absolutely nothing compares to the gap in power from those early days. Red was the unit, so significantly that people would prefer off-typing with him and Kantrio instead of using on-type damage for many types, for over two years with the game. The reason for his power was two-fold. One was Blast Burn. Other options had access to four-bar moves, but the lower accuracy combined with Piercing Gaze meant a power boost without the downside. Second, Red's self-setup is immaculate. Two turns of trainer move, Dire Hit+, sync gives him +1 crit, and you're at maximum offensive ability, with maxed out speed. There was very little that compared, so much so that even the first Master Fair in Leon was considered less potent due to his poor self-setup.

Over time, this stopped being as significant. Stronger moves than Blast Burn exist, and better self-setup certainly exists among limited pairs. Red didn't strictly need this help, but it's not entirely unwarranted. He fell off a bit. So to keep him relevant...they gave him some cosmetic tools.

Soften Up, Sharp Entry, Solar Flare 2, Sync Thinker, Standfast 9, and TM: Propulsion. All of these are solidly mid. At no point has Red ever thought to himself gee, I sure wish I could Flare Blitz right now. Sharp Entry is nice for easier setup on that first sync, but Soften Up isn't worth the price of getting to it. Sync Thinker is funny for the kaboom after sync, but it's one use per rotation so it's not the same as, I dunno, a multiplier. That's really the big loss; Red still has no natural multipliers for move damage, which is his big draw. Meanwhile Lance and Alder are out here getting fat 30% free boosts on goddamn Hyper Beam. The tradeoff is Propulsion, which means Red can now fast ramp with any other source of -1 cooldown. Which is great, except that one of Red's defining features is his 3-turn self-setup. So if you go for a fast-ramp, he's support reliant now.

Again, the grid is not the worst there's ever been, but it's very noticeably limited compared to what contemporaries have received. Like, not even Burn effects off Heat Wave for Gauntlet purposes. Just very small, almost superficial upgrades that don't seriously change how he was playing in the first place. Which I love. He'll never be bad, sadly for me, but at least this form will never see the light of top tier performance again.

EX and Move Level? There are people that don't have him 3/5 EX? Weird, man. Anyway, mine's now 3/5 for sad reasons involving banner sharing, but I don't EX him and he can do alright.

Team 1: SS Red, SS Morty, Eevee Lucas/NC Leaf This is the more or less defining set. SS Morty is Red's best partner by miles, while Eevee Lucas supplies special defense debuffing and even eases Red's setup if you're going for Propulsion sets. NC Leaf is a solid alternative, packing even more immunities for the team and extra Sun setting. But also she has Kanto Pride and Potion. Which means that this is like the only time Flare Blitz SS Red makes any kind of sense. That said, his trainer move only gives attack if he's already mega evolved, so I don't really think it's optimal.

Team 2: SS Red, Lodge Dawn/BP Janine, Blaine If you're going for F2P, this is the set. SS Red hits like a truck even at 1/5 thanks to Blast Burn, and a little Sun application will power that up quite well. Blaine has a ton of matched theme skills and that coveted Sun. Lodge Dawn and BP Janine are really nice partners, thanks to Team Sharp Entry, but each has their own utility. Janine can easily buff his offense to max, so after one Dire Hit+ he gets blasting. Dawn offsets the defense drop on his trainer move, and can run Mind Games 2 as a lucky skill to debuff defenses. Up to preference.

Final Thoughts Again, I've been a this a while today, so I'm cutting it a little short. Red has very little utility under his belt, and exists to sync under Sun and spam Blast Burn. Thanks to effective self-setup, he is able to do this with minimal consideration to partners. I could talk about the Propulsion set, but I am very opposed to 5/5ing Red. I don't think it's actually worth it. Besides, the only adjustment is "bring someone who also buffs crit," and Morty can do that fine.

[stackableringsny]

Engagement Rings with Pear Shaped Loose Diamonds

The many shapes of pear-cut diamond have charmed aficionados to create exquisite ornaments. The pear shaped loose diamonds is a modified brilliant-cut, meaning it flaunts the splendor of a round-brilliant cut; without the predictability of its roundness. It is a fascinating blend of oval and marquise cuts. The pear cut or teardrop diamond has witnessed the soaring popularity among several celebrities, considering it over the traditional round brilliant solitaire.

With its unique elongated outline, the pear-shaped loose diamond can be well-set in inventive silhouettes. Hence, the jewelers use pear-shaped diamonds to craft several one-of-a-kind diamond engagement rings. You can play with the carat weight, color, and dimensions to arrive at a perfect pear-shaped diamond that best meets your design requirement.

Pear-cut diamond engagement ring

There's no denying that the round brilliant has ceded ground to the pear-cut diamond. Pear-shaped diamond engagement rings are making a significant comeback. Pear-cut is a stunner and is not only eye-catching but also creates the sought-after illusion of elongating and flattering your finger. And irrespective of its size, a pear-cut diamond usually sparkles a little more than other fancy counterparts.

Pear-shaped diamonds offer several possibilities to include diverse aspects and aesthetics. Think of a minimal solitaire, an elaborate vintage-inspired style, a fancy colored pear-shaped diamond, and uncommon designs with colorful gemstones. You can also opt for unconventional settings of double-band rings, clusters, off-kilter stones, or multiple stones. These are ideal if you're inclined to avoid the trap of the traditional diamond engagement rings. The versatile teardrop pear diamond beautifully comes through and shines in every possible setting and design.

Pros and cons of pear-shaped loose diamonds

The best part about pear-shaped diamonds is their elongated shape. Thanks to this advantage, they appear much bigger than their other counterparts of comparable sizes. Hence, offer better value than a round brilliant, with a visibly larger surface area.

A pear cut diamonds customizable, as it can be set north-south, with the stone facing up or down, east-west horizontally, or interestingly off-kilter.

Though appearing larger carat for carat, the particular pear shape makes it susceptible to damage. The pointy, minute tip is quite fragile, and unless properly cared for, is highly vulnerable to chipping and breaking. The pear shape is not symmetrical, and unless cut to perfection, may appear heavier on either the rounded or pointed side to create a lopsided look.

What makes your pear-shaped diamond engagement ring perfect?

Avoid the bow-tie effect in your piece of pear diamond. This dark zone at the center of the diamond will be minimal in a well-cut stone. Optimal proportions and symmetry will ensure a not too narrow or wide pear-cut diamond.

Both bezel setting and prong setting work ideally for pear-shaped diamonds. A V-prong at the pointed edge can help guard the diamond against unwarranted damage. All metals work beautifully with pear-cut diamonds. Having a bigger surface means pear diamonds exhibit more color than other diamonds. Rose gold or yellow gold complements a slightly colored stone.  

[edelblau]

i don't know. i keep trying to be optimistic but my optimism often ends up being unwarranted/unottainable things, i only seem to be able to have faith at the worst possible times and end up getting hurt and i cant tell if im just not trying hard enough or if there really is nothing more that i can do, it doesnt help that im pretty sure theres like. massive issues with my physical health going unaddressed bc my family doctor doesnt take me seriously but im not sure how to go about finding another doctor and because my family doctor doesnt take me seriously i still don't have any help w my mobility issues which makes like. taking steps very difficult since anything that involves physically going somewhere is immensely hard for me to arrange hehe

[psychoticallytrans]

Correct me if I'm interpreting this incorrectly, but it sounds like your problem with people's behavior is primarily when the objection takes the form of violent threats, and secondarily that you think that disability pride is doomed to not be heard above queer wrath if the latter people choose to be loud. My interpretation is that you feel that people are making unwarranted threats, which I agree is not helpful, which are pointless because we won't be heard anyway, which I think has some points, but that not trying to be heard makes it certain we won't be.

I understand your pessimism and your dislike of the corporate side of queer pride. I personally don't participate in the corporate side of pride either, choosing to celebrate privately with my friends while doing the work I can to support them and other queer people in my area.

However, I want disability pride to be widely known enough that every disabled person has the option to celebrate it in any way that makes them feel proud. Perhaps that will never include the corporate assimilation that queer pride does, and better for it. For me, what both disability and queer pride should be about is knowing you're not alone, that there are others like you and that there are people who will support you. That's what I want us to work forward to. I've never felt that the celebrations were as much about liberation as they are about keeping hope alive. Because keeping hope alive is part of what keeps queer and disabled people alive.

It's quite possible my optimism is unwarranted. Certainly, history and prejudice are against us. But for me personally, it is worth it to try.

maybe im just not cool like the trendy disabled bloggers constantly posting exaggerated violent threats on here or w/e but i just don't see problems with people joking about july as queer wrath month. most months are multiple things. april is autism acceptance month and child abuse prevention month and national poetry month. hell, if you want this specific overlap, october is lgbt history month and disability employment awareness month (it's also the uk's black history month). it's not ~stealing valor~ for queer wrath and disability pride to be the same month, and if it was then we'd have to also have a conversation about how irish-americans and colon cancer patients are stealing valor from women in march, or something. don't be a dick.

[cacoetheswriting]

fluff alphabet - spencer reid

A = Attractive (what do they find attractive about the other?)

It would be safe to say you’re strangerly attracted to his genius. Many people find it annoying, how he spits facts completely unwarranted, but not you. His vast knowledge of quite literally anything is what sparked your interest in the young doctor in the first place.

Spencer on the other hand is captivated by your smile. The kindness behind it; how truly genuine it always is. He especially likes when he is the reason that smile spreads across your face, from cheek to cheek, illuminating your perfect features.

B = Baby (do they want a family? why/why not?)

Definitely yes, and you know Spencer would make a great dad. He has a way with kids and it comes to him so naturally. Frankly you can’t wait for the day you get to tell him you’re expecting.

C = Cuddle (how do they cuddle?)

One arm wrapped securely around you, pulling you in as close to him as possible. Your head resting on his shoulder landing just below his chin. He smells your hair taking in the scent of your shampoo before placing a soft kiss on the top of your head. 

D = Dates (what are dates with them like?)

He likes to take you out to the movies where you share popcorn and a large soda. A lot of coffee dates where he enlightens you on books he read or reread and you fill him in on the latest pop culture gossip. Nothing too adventurous but never boring.

E = Everything (“you are my ____” (e.g my life, my world…))

“You’re my home.” Spencer whispered, his hands cupping your face. You blinked a couple of times registering what he just said but before you got a chance to respond he continued. “When I’m with you, I feel so comfortable and at peace. I can truly be myself around you, no judgement or scrutiny.” He took a soft breath. “When I’m with you I feel at home and that doesn't make much sense to me but you’ve told me before that not everything has to make sense. Especially when it comes to love.”

F = Feelings (when did they know they were falling in love?)

One evening at a bar with your friends you repeated a fact to the group that Spencer had told you earlier in the week. It caught him off guard because no-one really listens to the rambles that come out of his mouth. Yet here you were, the biggest smile on your face as you reiterated: “chewing gum boosts concentration.”. You glanced at the young doctor from across the table. His eyes lit up as they locked with yours. That’s when he knew. 

G = Gentle (are they gentle? If so, how?)

Spencer is one of the gentlest souls you have ever met. He has an incredibly pure and kind heart. He always puts you first and would never dare to do anything that could hurt you. Your happiness is his priority and even though he’s not the most physical person he always does everything in his power to make you see how loved you are. 

H = Hand/Hold (how do they like to hold? how do they like to hold hands?)

For many reasons he isn't the biggest fan of public displays of affection. But when he does hold your hand, he traces down your fingers gently with his own before intertwining them. He’d then lift your hand to his lips and place a soft kiss on your knuckle.

I = Impression (first impression/s)

At first Spencer found you quite hard to read. He’s usually not good at social cues or interactions therefore it took him longer than the rest of the team to really get to know you. 

You on the other hand were instantly mesmerised by the young doctor. The wealth of knowledge he possessed was captivating and in a way inspiring.

J = Joker (are they into pulling pranks?)

Definitely; Spencer loves a good practical joke. He also has quite a good sense of humour. Not everyone always understands his jokes but they never fail to make you giggle.

K = Kisses (how do they kiss?)

When Spencer kisses you he does so with all his might. Unlike his usual gentle demeanour, when he kisses you it’s always with immense passion. He cups your face with his hands and pulls you in as close as humanly possible. 

L = Love (who says I love you first?)

You do - however completely by accident. “Did you know nutmeg can be fatally poisonous?” Spencer asked as the barista handed you a brown paper bag with a pumpkin dessert bar inside. “A little dash of nutmeg in a pumpkin pie or on your eggnog gives it extra flavour Spencer.” You noted flashing him a smile. “Too much nutmeg, however, can be toxic. Two to three teaspoons of raw nutmeg can induce hallucinations, convulsions, pain, nausea, and paranoia that can last for several days.” He stated. You couldn't help but laugh. “I love you Spencer but I’m not going to die because of a sweet indulgence.” It took you a second to register what you just said. Your free hand travelled to your mouth covering it with a soft gasp. “Shit Spencer, I didn-” “You love me?” He interrupted. All you could do was nod in response. 

M = Memory (their favourite moment together)

After a particularly hard case Spencer drives you home, like he has done so many times before. He walks you to the door of your apartment and waits until you are safely inside. He places a soft kiss on your forehead and says goodnight - which is when you ask him to come inside, stay the night. Rather than going to sleep however you stay up baking what turned out to be the worst brownies either of you have ever tasted. 

N = Nickel (do they spoil? do they buy the person they love everything?)

Spencer is not an overly material person. He prefers to shower you with words of affirmation and subtle compliments. Although when he does give you a gift it is always extremely thoughtful and definitely something that means a lot to the two of you.

O = Orange (what colour reminds them of their other half?)

If he had to associate a colour with you it would be yellow. Yellow - the colour of optimism. The colour of sunshine and enthusiasm. It stimulates the left side of the brain, helping with clear thinking and quick decision making. 

P = Pet names (what pet names do they use?)

He shortened your name. It was unintentional when it first happened but you liked the way it sounded so it stuck. You on the other hand, if you’re not using his first name, usually call him ‘honey’ or ‘sugar’ which he used to hate. If you’re feeling giddy you’ll call him by the original nickname you came up before you were dating: ‘suspence’.

Q = Questions (what are the questions they’re always asking?)

“Are you okay?” - you are his priority therefore he likes to make sure nothing is ever wrong. “Do you need anything?” “How are you feeling?” 

R = Rainy Day (what do they like to do on a rainy day?)

When the weather outside is far from ideal and the two of you are not out working a case, Spencer likes to curl up on the couch with you. He’ll put on an old back and white movie as you provide the drinks.  

S = Sad (how do they cheer themselves/each other up)

If he’s feeling sad you find yourself reaching for a random book on his shelf and reading the first few chapters aloud. His head rests in your lap, eyes closed, as he listens to the sweet sound of your voice. 

If you’re feeling down, Spencer will draw you a bath. He’ll light a couple of candles and dot them around the bathroom. He’ll play relaxing music through the speaker of his phone as the two of you enjoy the warm water together. 

T = Talking (what do they love to talk about?)

The short answer, everything. You never run out of topics to discuss and the conversation flow is always pleasantly smooth. 

U = Unencumbered (what helps them relax?)

Quite simply you. No-one knows Spencer the way you do and even though the two of you haven't been together for very long you know exactly what to say or do to calm him down.

V = Vaunt (what do they like to show off? What are they proud of?)

Spencer is modest which is one of the things you admire about him. The one thing he truly shows off is his knowledge of pretty much everything - even if he does it unintentionally. 

W = Wedding (when, how, where do they propose?)

“Almost fifty percent of all marriages in the United States end in divorce or separation.” Spencer said turning off the documentary you just finished watching. “Researchers estimate that forty-one percent of all first marriages end in divorce.” He continued. “Well, lets hope when we get married we’ll be in the lucky fifty-nine percent that lasts.” You teased, a small smile circling your lips.

X = Xylophone (what’s their song?)

Let’s Groove by Earth, Wind & Fire. The song was queued by Penelope at one of Rossi’s famous get togethers - before you and Spencer were dating. She swayed and twirled, soon joined by Morgan, as the rest of the group watched and laughed. You glanced at the young doctor and before he got a chance to protest you dragged him into the middle of the room to dance. 

Y = You’re the ___ to my ___ (e.g the cookies to my milk, the macaroni to my cheese)

“You’re the Holmes to my Watson.” He furrowed his eyebrows in confusion. “Why am I not Watson?” “Because you’re not that kind of doctor.” You nudged Spencer playfully. He couldn't help but laugh under his breath. “That is a terrible analogy.” “Terrible or not, it’s true.” 

Z = Zebra (if they wanted a pet, what pet would they get?)

He wouldn't want a pet for now. The job is too demanding, he’s away for long periods of time and there'd be no-one to take care of it. Perhaps in the future, when you’re married and have kids. Perhaps. 

-

[astrowithkaro]

hi! can i request a language of birthdays post for jan 10? thank you so much! ❤️❤️

Language Of Birthdays: January 10 - Capricorn

[You can find the rest of the series here; or check out my masterlist]

The Day Of The Hard Look

Those born on January 10 are realists first and foremost, capable of taking a hard look at most any situation, sizing it up and acting accordingly. Rarely prey to false optimism, dreamy hopes or visions, they are somewhat proud of their realistic assessment of things. Whether they are sensitive people or not, January 10 people do not let either their own or other people's sensitivity get in the way of telling it like it is. Uncompromising in their views, those born on this day are not accustomed to sugar-coating the pill or honeying their words. Things simply are the way they are—take it or leave it.

January 10 people may thus be accused of being blunt or undiplomatic, but rarely of being dishonest. Even their detractors have to admit that they do not operate by a double standard they apply the same strict and unyielding standards to themselves as they do to everyone else. Not necessarily analytical or critical types, it is more their own forthright views and uncompromising attitude that can bring them into conflict with others. Indeed, most born on this day do not hesitate to flaunt unpopular opinions or behave in a manner at odds with convention, particularly when they feel that the dictates of convention are unwarranted or unreasonable. Not all January 10 people are exhibitionistic or colorful, however. Some prefer to understate their no less realistic view of the world, or perhaps on occasion keep silent where others would speak. In that silence, however, they can convey the heaviest brand of judgement, simply by withholding their approval, endorsement or enthusiasm.

January 10 people are not averse to leadership roles, but dominating a situation, even from behind the scenes, is usually good enough for them. In personal combat, their attacking style need not be a wading in there and landing of first blows. They are very good counterpunchers and know how to wait for their opportunity. Because they are good at eliciting desired reactions from people, they often maintain the upper hand right from the start. When hurt by an opponent, or for that matter a friend, they may reveal little of the pain they suffer.

It seems as if very little surprises January 10 people, and indeed they enjoy living as if prepared for anything. Yet, of course, they have their vulnerabilities. Like anyone else they wish to be appreciated and admired by those close to them, and perhaps by a wider circle as well. But they have few insecurities in this respect, and consequently do not display an overt need to be liked.

Respect is something else, however. This they do demand, perhaps too often in an overt fashion. One weak spot of January 10 individuals is that they are rather thin-skinned when un-favorably compared to others. Prone to jealousy in this area, those born on this day are likely to reveal their Achilles heel even when only indirectly challenged by their rivals or competitors being praised. In such an event they should just learn to laugh, shake it off and forget it.

Strengths:

Tough

Authoritative

Realistic

Weaknesses:

Insensitive

Armoured

Jealous

Advice

Those born on January 10 are apt to harden themselves in an overly realistic, anti-sentimental stance, perhaps in the process of burying their emotions and sensitivities. They may come to suffer from all sorts of rigidity, both psychological and physical, and as they grow older not only suffer defects of posture, arthritis, restricted muscular movement, neuralgia and the like, but also tightness in the chest or bowels. These may all be symbolic of a kind of armoring, which they must break through, perhaps in extreme cases trying Keichian therapy, Rolfing. rebirthing or other aggressive procedures. For them to remain vulnerable, and display their feelings openly is something to strive for. January 10 diets should be kept light, fun and colorful, rather than dark and heavy. A well-lit, sunny home is strongly recommended, if possible, with plenty of fresh air. As far as exercise is concerned. January 10 people often prefer intense or highly athletic activities, but should also consider more social forms of exercise such as dancing.

Keep it light and have fun

Let your guard down occasionally

Carrying all the armour can be pretty tiring

Take a seat once in awhile and enjoy the ride

Allow yourself to need and be needed

[goodhorse413]

Misalignments generally fall into two major categories: Inequality, and goodharting. Inequality refers to the market’s overwhelming bias for satisfying the desires of some moral patients over others. Goodharting refers to occasions when production-for-profit does not increase U at all.

Inequality is an obvious misalignment. So much so that it’s the one everyone notices. It’s not difficult to look out the window and see that some people have three houses and some zero. It’s hard to be convinced that this is an ideal distribution of resources. Besides the obvious “distributive inefficiency” as Abba Lerner would call it, there are also dozens of more abstract downsides to inequality which I will not go over here. Many have raised objections to the widely held belief that inequality is bad. These objections are weak. Most of these objections are from confused right-desertists, deontologists with very stubborn views on property rights, or temporarily-embarassed egoists, but I will give a brief response to the arguments given against egalitarianism from a utilitarian point of view. These usually go something like this:

“The economy is not zero-sum. Whether or not someone else is rich has nothing to do with whether you are poor. It’s possible for greater inequality to actually be better for the poor, because it could result in a greater amount of total wealth in society than would exist otherwise.”

This is a common argument. Ludwig Von Mises uses it against Karl Marx (who was not even an egalitarian by the way) in this rap battle funded by the Charles Koch Foundation.

“The pie can get bigger. It’s not zero-sum. Free markets have lifted the lowest incomes.”

Anarcho-capitalist Bryan Caplan invites us to imagine a world where there is a 100% tax on everything, the proceeds of which are distributed equally among the population. He mostly thinks this is just a big violation of negative liberty, but he also clearly wants to emphasize the bad consequences of such a policy:

“Given these awful incentives, everyone would have to survive on an equal share of virtually zero output.”

It’s true that the economy is not zero-sum, and it’s true that this implies some degree of inequality is necessary, just as it implied for the paperclip demon that some degree of non-paperclip production was necessary. Apples create paperclips after all, so it’s theoretically possible that Jeff Bezos’s spaceship creates rice for Haitians. Bryan Caplan is correct that the utility demon would not set the rate of exploitation at 100%. But an anarcho-capitalist doesn’t need to prove merely that the ideal rate would be under 100%. They need to prove that it would be 0%! The fact that some inequality is necessary does not in any way demonstrate that the current level of inequality is not too high. As for Mises’s point, he could just as easily say the same thing to the paperclip demon.

“Two hundred years ago, there were no paperclips in all of Equestria. Now, thanks to capitalism, free markets have provided us with millions of paperclips! You may see ponies building big statues and skyscrapers made with metal and think that they are trading off against paperclip production, but statue production and paperclip production are positively correlated, not negatively!”

But clearly, big metal statues do trade off with paperclips, unless they are necessary to incentivize the creation of more paperclips, which is unlikely. Any bits that the paperclip demon sends to the statue-builders are bits that he could have sent to the paperclip workers. It is not impossible that going to space might have incentivized Jeff Bezos to improve amazon in such a way that it somehow improved life for people in Haiti, but there is no economic reason to believe this to be the case, and it seems unbelievably unlikely. It is unwarranted faith that the market is accidentally optimizing for something it is not trying to optimize for.

We have shown that it is possible for the level of inequality to be either above or below the U-maximizing rate. So, if you’re a utility imp who wants to know whether his society is too unequal or not unequal enough, here is a handy technique for figuring out what kind of world you live in: be an effective altruist.

If you do the effective altruism thing, and you and all your buddies get together to figure out what the most U-maximizing uses of a dollar are, and you live in a world where inequality is too high, your answers will look something like:

Providing medical care to the global poor

Providing money to the global poor

Providing medical care and money to the global poor

If, however, you live in a world where inequality is too low, your answers will look something like:

Subsidizing the capital incomes of stockholders

Subsidizing the bonuses of CEO’s

Subsidizing the incomes of business executives

I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine what kind of world they live in.

It is impossible for a citizen of the utility demon’s Equestria to be an effective altruist, because they would never have been distributed anything in the first place unless it was already being put to best use in their hooves.

Goodharting is what people are usually talking about when they talk about markets being misaligned. From the hedonistic perspective (which, if you have not been able to tell, is the perspective I take), the profit motive actually has a tendency to do pretty well at incentivizing U-increasing behavior. The logic of production for exchange is that it incentivizes the production of things that people are willing to trade money for, which tend to be good things. This is why markets have created so many cookies and video games and stuffed animals and all sorts of very fun things. If you have a more anti-consumerist value system, you may not consider this a virtue, but when I speak of goodharting, I’m talking about situations where “producing things that people are willing to trade money for” is not equivalent to “producing things that increase the amount of pleasure in the world”. Inequality results in inefficient increases in U, but goodharting results in incentives for behavior which do not improve the world even a little bit, and even make it much worse. The most noticeable example of this kind of misalignment is advertising.

I hate ads. They are literal gigantic neon signs plastered all over the planet Earth proudly displaying humanity’s enslavement to the monster machine of capital. The first advertisement that ever went up should have resulted in a public execution, and there should never have been a second one. In 2023, the United States spent 733 billion dollars creating ads. The utility demon would not have done this.

If you are a profit imp who owns a company, your utility function is directly tied to the utility function of “make things that people desire”. If you are in competition with another profit imp, you will both compete to maximize the desirability of your products. You can do this by making your products better, which is a good thing for the economy to incentivize people to do. But you can also cheat, by, instead of making your products better, increasing the desire of the consumer base. Rather than solely working to satisfy the needs of people, corporations are incentivized to create new needs in people! It’s possible for a company to be out-competed by a company that makes worse products, just because the latter had better marketing.

Advertisements are the most noticeable example of goodharting, but they are not even close to the most harmful. Every utilitarian calculation, every examination of the good and evil caused by mankind, every single analysis of whether things have gotten worse or better over time, are all overwhelmed by the fact that an almost unnoticed market misalignment in the middle of the 20th century resulted in the ongoing moral catastrophe of factory farming.

The utility demon would be extraordinarily hesitant to raise a pig for slaughter and consumption (the leximin demon would never do it at all). The consumer’s effect on U would be almost nonexistent compared to the pig’s effect. If it absolutely had to do so, it would probably contribute an awful lot of resources towards the pig’s wellbeing. Pigs are social animals, who are most comfortable in small groups, so the utility demon would likely raise them in such groups, as they live in the wild. They prefer to root around in the soil for food, eating roots and stems, and the utility demon would provide the groups with large ranges around which to scavenge. It would protect them from predation, treat any medical issues, preferably before they arose, and provide them with ample opportunities to engage in their natural behaviors.

None of this is the most profitable way to raise pigs, and so it is not how they are raised in our world. Female pigs are artificially inseminated and kept inside gestation crates, cages which are too small for the pigs inside them to move or turn around. This is done to prevent the mother from accidentally crushing her children because of how cramped the conditions are. A pig’s natural instinct is to create a nest for her babies out of foraged twigs and leaves. Kept in the gestation crate, she is obviously unable to do so. In the wild she would nurse her piglets until they are about three months old, but in the factory farm her piglets are taken away from her at only three weeks. Like for all mammals, separation from her children is a very traumatic experience.

Her male children begin their lives by being castrated without anesthetic. This is because meat from castrated pigs has a more palatable taste and smell, and anesthetic isn’t free, so this behavior is incentivized in farmers. Because pigs evolved to live freely as scavengers in large ranges and small intimate social groups, the extreme crowding of the factory farm creates intense stress in the pigs for their entire lives, leading them to perform compulsive behaviors including biting their own tails. To prevent this, farmers cut off their tails. Again, anesthetic isn’t free, so there is a negative incentive against using it. The tail is not the final mutilation the pig will endure before death, because most farms will also cut off part of each pig’s ear to distinguish it from the others, which is useful to the farm when there are so many pigs in such a small space, and baby pigs will have their teeth cut off to prevent them from growing tusks later. At the age of six months old, when a wild pig would still be a baby, they are carted off to the slaughterhouse. The trip can be very long, and no food or water is provided to them. The crowding in the trucks is so severe that they cannot sit or lie down to rest. There is no space.

124 million pigs are slaughtered in the USA every year. Most of them are stunned unconscious before their throats are slit and they are dipped into boiling water. The system is imperfect (they are only stunned at all because of a regulation from 1958), and some of them are improperly stunned, dying either from blood loss, choking on hot steam, or simply boiling to death. Conditions are even worse for chickens (the 1958 regulation doesn't apply to them), among whom more than 8 billion are slaughtered a year in the USA alone. The scale of this atrocity is unimaginable, and it owes its existence to mundane incentives to meet consumer demand.

So far I have only described a model with which to analyze problems, but the point is to solve them. Putting an omniscient utility demon in charge of all of the world’s wealth is not a viable solution, because omniscient utility demons do not exist.

Despite Max’s implications otherwise, goodharting seems much simpler to resolve than inequality. It is unquestionably a larger problem by a significant margin, but I think it would be easier to resolve. The law could end factory farming tomorrow. Just make torturing animals illegal. Before then, even moderate regulations, corporate activism, and consumer movements can drastically reduce the suffering of farmed animals. Donations to the humane league are the best use of money I have ever discovered, and since I got my first job I’ve donated ten percent of my pre-tax income to them. As for advertising, the totalitarian in me kind of just wants to make that illegal too, but a more moderate solution might be a marketing tax.

Inequality is the more interesting problem, and solutions come in two forms: redistribution and predistribution. Redistribution refers to interventions in the market that reduce inequality, mainly through taxes and transfers. Predistribution (the way I use the term here) refers to changing the rules underlying the market in the first place to change the market’s optimal distribution. We will begin by talking about redistribution.  

One of many reasons why a planned economy is a poor idea is simply that it is unnecessary. It’s a solution in search of a problem. Every demon and imp, no matter their utility function, has their interests aligned with a production-for-profit sector that generates surplus for consumption. This is the same process which creates profit imps. Shareholders and CEO’s all have their own utility functions which lead them to produce for exchange. They have no more intrinsic interest in profit than the paperclip demon does, but they share his instrumental interest in production for exchange. The market can therefore be expected to reliably create incentives, because all of the imps who coordinate its distribution have an individual instrumental interest in doing so. The market, under the right conditions, can replicate to an impressive degree the production-for-profit sector of the utility-demonic economy. The production-for-use sector can be replicated by the welfare state.

The key to designing a good welfare state is to keep in mind what you’re actually doing. The purpose of the welfare state should be to provide for the wellbeing of society to the greatest extent possible given the resources at your disposal. It does not exist merely to correct market failures (although it can do that in some cases) nor to serve as a blue shell to give the disadvantaged a leg up (although it can do that in some cases). It should be THE primary mechanism in society for providing people with what they need. The welfare state is incredibly important. It should provide everybody with as much of the wealth of society as is feasible. The perfect welfare state is one that takes its first dollar out of the least useful money stream and puts it into the most useful money stream, and then repeats the process until all money streams equalize in utility. This means that taxes should prioritize the least valuable dollars, and transfers should prioritize the most valuable uses of money. To this end, welfare state policy should strive to meet the following criteria:

Welfare state benefits should be universal, unconditional, and equal, except when there exists an inequality of needs (for example, disabled people should receive more from the welfare state than abled people)

The welfare state should, whenever possible, prefer direct cash transfers to in-kind transfers

The welfare state should prefer direct benefits to indirect benefits

All economic rents (payments that do not incentivize the creation of more wealth) should go the welfare state with no exceptions

The tax system should prefer taxes on the rich to taxes on the poor

The tax system should prefer taxes with lower deadweight loss to ones with higher deadweight loss

In other words, there should be a utility floor, a minimum level of comfort, below which nobody must ever fall, which is as high as feasible, and grows continuously.

The welfare state should be all-encompassing, and I mean that in the most significant possible sense. Ideally, there would be one welfare state for all sentient beings. A one world government is deeply unpopular, but there is literally no benefit to sectioning off the world into separate nationstates with their own separate tax and transfer systems. There should be freedom of movement all across the Earth, free trade all across the Earth, and one shared tax system and welfare state all across the Earth. Dividing the world’s wealth into highly unequal sections and forbidding equalization between them would never have been seriously suggested if the world economy was being created from scratch, but reinforcing this exact situation is one of the most popular political beliefs on Earth. Remember that Marx Vs. Mises rap battle I mentioned earlier? Well, here’s the line that came right after the one I quoted:

“If you really want to help out the poorest nations, encourage peace, trade, and immigration!”

This is, I will concede, a great point. All three of these things would indeed reduce global inequality and poverty by a huge degree, while also being pareto improvements (and therefore palatable to libertarians). The reason they are so unpopular is because of the brain virus of nationalism: the idea that moral patienthood is determined by geography.

You may have noticed my use of the term “sentient beings” rather than “humans”. This was not a mistake. I think the welfare state should support animals, including wild animals. I have no suggestions for how this ought to be carried out in a rational manner. Feasible wild animal welfare improving interventions are difficult to discover. I only want to give my support for it on principle. Wild animal suffering is a real and large-scale problem, made no less serious by its predating human civilization, and if future humans are able to alleviate it effectively, I think the state will be obligated to do so, as the private sector will have no incentive to do it.

Before I move on to predistribution, I want to make the case for one more unintuitive aspect of the principle of universality, that being that welfare benefits should not be means-tested, meaning that even rich people should receive welfare benefits. Common objections to this are confused, and can easily be resolved by looking at the money distribution like a demon, and not like a tax collector. Benefits that cut off at a certain income level are distributionally equivalent to a tax on the income bracket directly above that cutoff. As such, they violate the principle of progressivity in taxation, disguising a tax on the working poor as a tax cut.

Taxes and transfers are just one way to improve the distribution of resources. The other is to change who owns what in the first place, and therefore change the market’s “fair” compensation. Profit imps are incentivized to distribute money to those who contribute productive assets to the firm, therefore producing more than what it costs to procure their contribution. What is often overlooked is that what each individual has to “contribute” depends on the property norms underlying the market. If redistribution is carried out by exo-capitalist institutions that intervene in the market, then predistribution is carried out by endo-capitalist institutions that determine the rules by which the market operates in the first place, and these are by no means fixed.

There are three factors of production (actually four, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves): Land, labor, and capital. Because these kinds of goods are factor goods, and not consumer goods, they can create new wealth, and markets involving them are not zero-sum. Linen coats may fall apart over time, but the total amount of linen coats in Equestria can increase because there is a steady supply of factor goods. The market prices these goods accordingly and provides income to their owners. Contra the desertist, the market is not paying the owners for the value of their merit, but for the value of their property. They will not relinquish the valuable thing they own unless they are paid for it. This is an important distinction, because the ownership of land, the ownership of labor, and the ownership of capital are all very different in important ways, even if factor payments for all three function in essentially the same way.

In many languages, there is a distinction between inalienable and alienable possession. Inalienable property is that which cannot be taken from you, because it intrinsically belongs to you, such as your arm, your mother, or your opinions. Alienable property is that which could in theory belong to someone else, such as your house, your toothbrush, and your lunchbox. Labor is unique among the three factors of production in that it is inalienable. The distribution of labor-power among the population is unequal not (entirely) because of historical injustices, but because people are fundamentally different from each other, and these differences mean that not everybody’s labor-power will be valued the same by the market. Some people are more skilled than others, and some people’s skills are more profitable than others, because nature played a pivotal role in distributing these skills, and nature is fascist. Land and capital are quite different. They are alienable.

The idea that people are compensated for what they own rather than necessarily what they do is infrequently understood. Many people, even very smart people, seem to be under the impression that all income is labor income. @raginrayguns says:

“A worker and an owner in a factory both rely on reason. But the owner is contributing more, since they contributed the plan for the factory.”

Raginrayguns seems to be confusing owners with industrial engineers. The person who draws up the plan for a factory is paid a labor income for his work. He’s still a worker. It may so happen that he also owns equity in the company which owns the factory, and earns capital gains on that equity, but if he does, those capital gains are not payment for his labor, but payment for his share of the company. The same share would pay the same dividends to anyone who owned it, regardless of whether they contributed labor to the company or not. The more common mistake is to confuse capital income with the labor incomes of money managers and business executives, which is incorrect for exactly the same reasons the former mistake was incorrect. Not all income is labor income. It should be noted that this category of errors is particularly common among right-desertists, who have strong incentives to hallucinate correlations between income and personal merit.

Because a large portion of income in society (about one third, according to Piketty) comes from land and capital, and not labor, it is clearly highly desirable to equalize the distribution of land and capital ownership across society, if such a distribution could preserve the efficient allocation of resources towards production-for-profit. This is the driving motivation behind socialism: the idea that non-labor productive assets should be owned collectively by society as a whole rather than individuals. Because land and capital are very different, the processes by which society might socialize land and capital are also very different, and we will examine them separately.

Land is the easy one. For starters, land income is an easier concept to understand than capital income, which tends to make people search for invisible labor. If you own land, people have to pay you for the right to use that land. Using your land can create more wealth, so you own a productive asset which earns you continuous income. Businesses need your land to make money, so they’re willing to pay in exchange for the value provided by your land, paying you rent. If your land happens to be particularly valuable, this rent will happen to be particularly large. If you buy a sandwich in New York City for twenty dollars, about ten of those dollars will go to whoever owns the land the sandwich shop is on, because New York land is more valuable than land elsewhere, but New York bread and chickpeas and tomatoes are not. If land were not priced, then either nobody could be granted exclusive rights to land, and therefore could not use land for productive purposes, or all of the land would be owned by people with no incentive whatsoever to give it up. Either way, land would not be allocated towards its most productive uses. The lack of property rights around land would constitute a market failure in the land market, and the state would have to intervene to establish property rights allowing land to be priced, resolving the market failure. However, the fact that is valuable for land to be priced does not mean that anyone actually needs to be paid that price. The law could demand that all land rent be burned instead of paid, and land would still be allocated just as efficiently as it was before. Land is allocated towards its most productive uses because it’s allocated to those willing to pay the most for it, and therefore those who are expected to make the most money with it. It’s the paying part that is important, not the receiving part.

Because of this, socializing land is very easy. All land could be owned collectively, and the state could rent it out on the people’s behalf. Individuals could be granted exclusive usage rights over this land, but only if they pay rent to society for the privilege. When you do socialism for land, it’s called georgism, and it’s often described not as collective ownership of land, but as a tax on the value of land minus improvements (the stuff on top of the land isn’t collectively owned, obviously), a tax which just so happens to be at the rate of 100%, which pays for a universal basic income. This is an equally valid analysis, and I could have defended such a system without reference to property at all, merely on the basis of 4th rule for welfare states, as land rent doesn’t incentivize the creation of more wealth, but I think the description of socialized land as a tax and transfer disguises the radicalism of the policy. It is not merely a tax shift, it is the complete liquidation of an entire economic class, landlords.

Socializing capital is much harder. Capital income is not rent. Paying land income does not incentivize the creation of more land, but paying capital income does incentivize the creation of more capital.

Capital is wealth that produces more wealth. Karl Marx describes it as undead labor: stuff that was produced by labor which can produce more stuff. A machine that cuts potatoes into french fries is capital. The factory that machine is in is capital. The software the machine runs is capital. If you happen to own a privately held company, then you own the capital the company holds, and receive capital income from them as profit. If you buy a share in a publicly traded company, then you own a portion of the capital that company holds, and receive capital income from that portion as dividends and capital gains. If you are a bank, and you loan money out to a business, you are providing capital to that business (or, more specifically, money which represents and can be exchanged for specific capital goods), and will receive back payment for your contribution as interest. When you purchase stocks, bonds, or securities from a capital market, you are providing capital to a business, and, if you have allocated that capital to a profitable use, you will be paid your contribution, and paid more the more profitable your allocation. Despite the CMC’s protestations, this is analogous to a labor market, where owners of labor-power are also incentivized to allocate their labor-power to its most valuable use. Labor is not unique in its capacity to produce wealth. After all, humans can be viewed as machines with ownership rights over themselves.

It’s clear that capital differs from land in an important way. If you tax land income at a rate of 100%, the amount of land in the world will remain the same. If you tax capital income at a rate of 100%, society would soon find itself with much less capital. Land cannot be created, so giving money to its owners does not incentivize the creation of new land. Giving money to owners of capital and labor, however, does incentivize the creation of new capital and labor. So the solution for land does not work as a solution for capital. There must be an incentive to invest money into profitable firms rather than spending it on consumption. The task for the wannabe socialist then, is to find a way to create a more equal distribution of capital ownership while preserving this incentive.

Of course, the government can just invest in the stock market like anybody else, and use the dividends it earns to pay for things. If the government owns a large investment fund, it’s called a social wealth fund. In Norway, one of the most equal countries in the world, there is a titanic social wealth fund funded by revenue from the state-owned oil company. This fund, called the oljefondet (oil fund), owns 1.5% of all publicly traded capital on Earth. Alaska has a similar fund called the Alaska permanent fund, also funded by oil revenue, which is held in common by every citizen of Alaska and paid out to each of them as a dividend every year. The government could also replace the corporate income tax with a one-time mandatory share issuance, acquiring some percentage of all the corporations in its jurisdiction. Metaphysiocrat says that a social wealth fund can also be funded by quantitative easing.

The social wealth fund idea has done quite well for itself in practice, but a more revolutionary-minded socialist might be disappointed by it. It doesn’t scale up to the whole of the economy. The oljefondet can’t own 100% of the capital on Earth. If it did, who could it sell it to? If the whole capital stock of the world were owned by a social wealth fund, there could be no capital market, and therefore capital could not be priced, and could not be allocated towards its most efficient uses.

An alternative proposal is to have a market economy consisting not of privately held and publicly traded corporations, but entirely of producer co-operatives, where the workers in the firm would own it. Rather than a stock market, co-operatives could raise capital by selling bonds to co-operative credit unions and/or a public bank in the debt market. This is one of the oldest and simplest proposed socialist systems, going back to the early 19th century. Its main advantage is that it preserves competition, capital markets, and the profit motive, while creating a much more equal distribution of capital. Some anarchists, specifically mutualists and left-wing market anarchists, are fond of this idea because it lacks economic classes, which are a form of hierarchy. It’s not as egalitarian as the utility demon’s distribution, since capital income accrues to workers rather than everybody, and, as Matt Bruenig points out, the ratio of capital to labor income (sometimes called the Marx Ratio) varies widely by industry, meaning that such a system could exacerbate inequalities between workers in capital-intensive and non-capital-intensive industries. However, it would still be significantly more equal than a society with private ownership of capital, and wealth inequality like what you see in America today would be impossible to arise in the first place. Also, I believe that inequalities in Marx ratios between industries would be much less severe in a society with a land value tax, since the industries with the highest Marx ratios are uniformly the ones which earn money through land rent. Real estate investment trusts have absurdly high Marx ratios compared to other kinds of firms. The co-operative system also has other benefits, most surprisingly that co-operatives tend to be more efficient than privately owned firms. This may result from the fact that workers in co-operatives are directly, rather than indirectly, incentivized to maximize the shareholder value they produce, because they are the shareholders. Co-operatives are also frequently argued for on democratic and communitarian grounds.    

“Now you wait just a gosh dang minute here!” says Applebloom. “Profit motive? Stock markets? Maximizing shareholder value? This doesn’t sound like real socialism at all!”

Well-disciplined utility imps like myself have no intrinsic preference for real socialism over fake socialism. My only preference is for good socialism over bad socialism, and if the socialism produces better outcomes which maintains capital markets and the profit motive, then so much for real socialism.

“I don’t think you understand what the problem with capitalism actually is!” says Sweetie Belle. “This is the difference between liberals like you and real socialists. The liberal criticism of capitalism is that it’s not efficient enough! You merely complain that the distribution of money isn’t equal enough, and it doesn’t even occur to you that some ponies might not like their lives to be ruled by money at all! Socialism is not about efficiency or equality, it’s about humanity! Or, um… equinity? Socialism is when wage labor itself is done away with, not when capitalists share their profits with everypony! Do you really want to spend your whole life toiling away for money, even in your perfect utilitarian technocrat utopia?”

Money is nothing but a store of value, a signifier which represents real wealth, which is what actually rules people’s lives, and always has, since long before capitalism existed. Before men and ponies were tyrannized by money, they were tyrannized by the soil. Before any economy even existed, prehistoric hunter-gatherers were tyrannized by the meager provisions of mother nature, which demanded the total subservience of their lives to the pursuit of the means of subsistence. If money ceased to exist, this tyranny would still remain. Its origin is scarcity, not the abstract representation of scarcity. As long as labor is necessary to produce the wealth that society relies on, workers will need to get paid, and that means there must be a labor market.

Which brings me to my final point. The status of labor as a commodity, with all its attendant miseries and evils, can only be abolished in a world where labor ceases to be necessary as a factor of production.  If all labor were to be automated, humanity could not only be freed from work, but also from inequality. All wealth would derive from capital and land, which could be held collectively. If labor were all automated, capital allocation could of course be automated as well.

Remember much earlier, when I stated the first theorem of welfare economics? I’ll remind you: if all goods are distributed according to optimal market conditions, the distribution will be pareto optimal, meaning that no further improvements can be made to any individual’s utility function unless someone else’s utility function is reduced. Now it is time for you to hear the second theorem of welfare economics: Any pareto optimal distribution can be achieved by an optimal market for some given set of initial endowments. This is important because the optima of the utilitarian and leximin functions are pareto optimal, meaning that there exist conditions under which an optimal market would maximize each of them.

All of this is to say that in a fully automated post-work society, there need not any longer remain any meaningful distinction between factor payments and transfer payments, or between production for exchange and production for use. Under perfectly equal conditions, possible in a world where only alienable factors of production are valuable, an optimal market, provided there was no goodharting and individuals made rational purchasing decisions, would be completely aligned with the utilitarian function. There would be no market misalignment whatsoever. Problem solved.

This is Rainbow Dash.

She is a terrific athlete. That’s why the government of Equestria gave her a very important job. Equestria needs pegasi to help maintain the weather. Farmers rely on pegasi like Rainbow Dash to make it rain when the apple trees need water. Ice skaters rely on pegasi like Rainbow Dash to bring the winter so the ponds can freeze over. Fillies and colts rely on pegasi like Rainbow Dash to bring the summer so the school year can end. The Ponyville marching band relies on pegasi like Rainbow Dash to make it warm and sunny on the day of the parade. Her job is very important. Because everypony benefits from Rainbow Dash doing her job, Rainbow Dash must do her job. Because Rainbow Dash must do her job, Rainbow Dash must get paid. But who pays Rainbow Dash? The pony who makes ice skates is paid by the ice skaters. The pony who makes apple juice popsicles is paid by the fillies and colts. But Rainbow Dash isn’t selling a service to an individual pony. Her work benefits the whole of Equestria, and if somepony is unwilling to pay, she is not capable of excluding that pony from the benefits. She provides a public good, something which is valuable, but neither rivalrous nor excludable. The mechanisms of mutually beneficial market exchange employed by the sellers of ice skates and apple juice popsicles do not apply. Unlike excludable goods, ponies have no incentive to contribute to the process that they benefit from. This is called the free-rider problem, and it’s an example of a market failure.

Market failures are situations when the normal conditions of “optimal” markets, such as clearly delineated property rights, perfect competition, and perfect information, are not met, and therefore non-market solutions, typically state interventions, can create pareto improvements. A pareto improvement is a change in the distribution of goods such that at least one pony is made better off, and nopony is made worse off. The first theorem of welfare economics states that if all goods are distributed under “optimal” market conditions, there can be no further pareto improvements.

Princess Celestia knows how important it is for Equestria’s weather to be properly maintained, so her government allocated a portion of tax revenue to pay for a national service that employs skilled pegasi, including Rainbow Dash, to maintain the weather of Equestria in the way most beneficial to the common good. This means that ponies in Equestria pay a slightly higher amount in taxes, but they all receive benefits from the improved weather that exceed the costs. Everypony benefits, and nopony loses. Thus, the market failure is corrected, and the economists breathe a sigh of relief.

This is Fluttershy.

She is the kindest and most gentle pony in the whole wide world. That’s why the government of Equestria gave her a very important job. Wild animals in Ponyville, just like wild animals on Earth, often suffer from disease and malnutrition, become injured in their daily lives, or become trapped and unable to free themselves. Fluttershy is one of the many ponies in Equestria who takes care of sick and injured animals. She provides vaccinations for rabies and tuberculosis, rescues trapped animals, and provides temporary medical care, food, and shelter for animals recovering from injuries.

Fluttershy’s job is very important. Countless animals rely on her to give them relief from the barbarities of natural life. Because they lack the necessary cognitive capacities to participate in pony society, and as such they do not have jobs, many of the needs of non-pony animals can only be met by ponies, who are endowed with the unique ability to understand and palliate the suffering of others, and as such have a responsibility to do just that. Because Fluttershy has a responsibility to do her job, Fluttershy must do her job. Because Fluttershy must do her job, Fluttershy must get paid. But who pays Fluttershy? Pinkie Pie makes cupcakes, and she is paid by the ponies who purchase her cupcakes. Rarity makes dresses, and she is paid by the ponies who purchase her dresses. But Fluttershy is providing a benefit to customers who cannot pay her. The market, with its system of mutual exchange, will not provide Fluttershy with the incentive to perform her responsibility, and so an intervention is needed.

Princess Celestia knows how important it is for the non-pony animals of Equestria to be vaccinated and have their injuries treated, so her government allocated a portion of tax revenue to pay for a national service that provides care to animals. Some ponies now pay a little more in taxes, but the lives of non-pony animals are significantly improved. This is not a pareto improvement, as some ponies have been made worse off than they would be in the counterfactual, but it is nevertheless desirable, because the benefits to the non-pony animals exceed the costs to the taxpayers.

Both of these pegasi have been employed by the government to perform necessary duties that a free market would not provide. In both cases, the market does not provide goods that would be desirable to provide. However, the situations are different. Rainbow Dash is employed to resolve a market failure, an instance when the market is unable in practice to achieve the distribution that it would in theory. Fluttershy is employed to resolve what I will call a market misalignment, an instance when the theoretical distribution provided by a market would be dispreferable to some other possible distribution. In both cases, an institution outside the market, such as the state, can interfere in the market to resolve the issue.

The phrase “market failure” is often used in vague and confusing ways that distort or misrepresent its primary definition. Sometimes inequality is described as a market failure. This is an inaccurate description. Inequality is an example of a market misalignment, a way in which the operation of a market may result in suboptimal outcomes. It is fundamentally different from a market failure, which is when real world markets fail to meet the conditions of ideal markets. The confusion is not helped by the language often used in economics. “Optimal”, “ideal”, and “perfect” are all words that have wildly different meanings in common parlance than they do in economics.

Market failures are widely discussed by progressive economists. They are frequently used as a means of critiquing laissez-faire and free market ideology, as these systems are poorly equipped to deal with market failures. Market misalignments, on the other hand, are more rarely discussed, despite being probably more important avenues of criticism towards laissez-faire.

I did not originate the concept of “misalignment” in the economic context. Many rationalist-adjacent left-wingers have independently invented the idea. @Max1461 refers to “humanist concerns” about capitalism as “the alignment problem as applied to economic systems.” Other people with views critical of capitalism have raised essentially the same idea, comparing the consequences of the profit motive to the problem of aligning artificial intelligences. Someone on the effective altruism forum made this comparison to argue for a new economic system (they didn’t say which one). Another person on the effective altruism forum made this comparison, but to defend the idea that AI alignment would be easy.

For all the gesturing at the concept of an economy being “misaligned”, I have yet to see an effort to formalize an analysis of market misalignment. This series of posts is my attempt.