Adir Zagury

Tel Aviv, Israel

About Adir

Languages

English, Hebrew

An idea worth spreading

http://www.ted.com/conversations/17621/a_whole_new_type_of_government.html

Favorite talks

Comments & conversations

185540
Adir Zagury
Posted about 2 years ago
Timothy Bartik: The economic case for preschool
Completely superficial. The return per dollar invested is determent by how much you invest - the less you invest the higher the return per investment. For example only made-up numbers: if you invest 100 $ per child per month the return would be 500$, or 1:5, if you invest 300$ the return is 900$, or 1:3 and if you invest gazillion dollars per child you'll lose money. the question needed is where, when and how much investment in each stage and time would produce the highest revenue.
185540
Adir Zagury
Posted about 2 years ago
Robert Gordon: The death of innovation, the end of growth
I know that it isn't in every country, but Israel have more trees today than it did a 100 years ago. Greenhouse gasses and especially CO2 are causing faster growth of plants. Most of the forestland that has been cut down is being used to farming and we are getting more efficient constantly and some other bullsh*t that I argue for the sake of argument but is a real and valid argument.
185540
Adir Zagury
Posted about 2 years ago
Robert Gordon: The death of innovation, the end of growth
Productivity doesn't connect to your supply or demand. The latest research shows that the world can supply for long term to 2 billion people, any more and the resources will lower with time- but it doesn't mean we can't increase what we take, it just mean that it will be used up eventually and like locust we will have to move on. I believe that some day we will move on. Plus, I didn't said I believe everything would be great, I just pointed out that his arguments are really flawed.
185540
Adir Zagury
Posted about 2 years ago
Robert Gordon: The death of innovation, the end of growth
1. What he's referring is the growth per capita (and for an example you can see he subtracts the growth of the top 1%). 2. Even if the talk is about US growth, world-wide growth will create more prosperity, that some would go into the US. 3. He doesn't raise the point of energy source limitation (and I previously said it should have been in his "headwinds". "satisfaction of our basic needs" isn't a point, but if you refer to the short in world food supply, so remember that 70% of the world food is thrown away (too much food so we're picky in the rich countries, bad storage in the poor ones, and more), and it is estimated that globally, fields have only 40% productivity.
185540
Adir Zagury
Posted about 2 years ago
Does permitting same-sex marriage lead to permitting polygamy? And so what?
"the best course may be to base all domestic relations on civil contract law, freeing marriage from its religious connections. In this future we may marry whom and as many as we wish, with a contract that tells our rights and duties within the group, along with rules for secession, etc. Sounds like a complex contract, but a logical outcome." Correct. Like any other personal contract, people can sign it with whomever they want, and wherever they want (lawyer, church...). Government legislation regarding marriage is out of place, unless to make sure that all parties signing it are doing do willingly and that the contract is fair (as they do to any contract: work, rent, banking and so on).
185540
Adir Zagury
Posted about 2 years ago
Robert Gordon: The death of innovation, the end of growth
He doesn't include three key features that will help with growth (and one that will decrease it): 1. The population demographic growth is declining, so the same growth per person wouldn't be applied- the growth for the entire group, divided in the number of people would be bigger. 2. The innovation we've reached so far, aren't fully used- still today, over 80% of the world lives in 19 century conditions- improving the productivity of those people would be a mach of the entire growth of the last 150 years (in the last 15 years, China India and Brazil had economical growth of 10% per year in average). 3. Assuming that we reached our innovation limit, or past it prime is a big mistake, because the innovation limit is 100% efficency, and there's a lot that could be improved: - Small improvements in technology are needed to make jobs like lawyers, accountants, and cashiers unnecessary- moving the workers to other, productive jobs. - Genetic manipulations is, and will continue to make food cheaper, with more protein. - Asteroids mining will make precious metals used in electronics. - 50% of clean waters get spilled in pipes, 95% of people transportation is done on a high cost-effect car, instead of public transportation, fusion reactors aren't in use, human genetic manipulation (to eliminate diseases) has not began and I guess you can think of many more. What he forgot, that help his case is that for the first time in the history, the amount of energy that outputs from a measure of input energy, has decreased 8 years ago and continues to ever since.
185540
Adir Zagury
Posted about 2 years ago
If communism was working the way its progenitors wanted it to, would it be better than capitalism?
The problom with communism isn't that its a dictatorship, capitalstic dictatorships works (relativtly) fine, in its purest form, the problom of communism is the lack of insentive to work, because there is no connection between your production of labor, creativity capital and so on with your pay, status and power- so there's no progress towads the best of labor, creations and biggest capital. The problom with capitalism in its purest form is that it allows those who fail, if they are componies or people, die out of the system, thus creating lose instand of helping them improve and create gain. The problom with the perverted system most of us live in today, is taht it is a mix of democracy, plutocracy, authoritarianism, capitalism and communism, it is a mix off all of those, but takes too little of the good in each and too much of the bad. But unlike communism which would have worked without the flaw of selfishness in humanity, or capitalism, which would have worked without the flaw of stupidity in humanity, this a constantly (yet slowly) improving system. My idea how to create the best economic: A certain amount of starting money to each individual, afterward, a pure libiral capitalism. My ideas on a "how to make" working governing system: http://www.ted.com/conversations/17621/a_whole_new_type_of_government.html
185540
Adir Zagury
Posted about 2 years ago
Building a massive vacuum chamber, manufacture a "hose", lower and connect it to the facility in a vacuum state, create a controlled siphon
If you are already building a hose into space, build a space elviator- it would be of much greater use. As Edward sayed currently it costs about $1,250 to send an ounce into orbit, using a space elavator would cost 40$. Building pipes from all of earth's air polluting plants would create more harm than good, and theconstant cost would also bemuch higher than sea level clearence. There are many simpler and cheaper solutions that can end polutions, but the poluting plants just don't want to pay, and we allow them. If you want to end the polution of air (and oceans and land) you don't need to find a grand plan to fix it, you just need to put personal responsebility on 100% of the polution caused by each plant and don't allow them by any mean to continue (NEW LAW!!! 1 FOR 1 SALE!! 1 GREM OF POLLUTION AND YOUR PLANT IS CLOSED!! HURRY UP, BEFORE IT ENDS!!!). You can trust the brilliant minds of the market to find the most economic way, to ensure that there plants would be allowed to contenue to work.