Thursday, July 21, 2016

Ingreso mínimo, educación, y salud: garantizado para todos los ecuatorianos… Y menos impuestos también.

Existe consenso nacional de indignación en los ecuatorianos a raíz del despilfarro del gobierno del socialismo del siglo XXI.  Con esto en mente sería bueno hacer números para ver lo que podría hacer un gobierno innovador por sus ciudadanos.   En el escenario que exploraremos a continuación todo ciudadano tendría garantizado un sueldo mínimo, educación, y salud.  Veamos:
Como premisa resaltemos, en números gruesos, que los ingresos totales del presupuesto general del estado (en base a su proforma 2015) superan los $27.000 millones.  El presupuesto para salud, $3.500 millones; educación, $4.300 millones.  Los ingresos por impuesto a la renta, $2.420 millones.  
Empecemos con el ingreso.  La forma de garantizar el ingreso mínimo en el Ecuador sería a través del mecanismo conocido como impuesto inverso.  Todo adulto declara impuesto a la renta, y si uno gana menos que el sueldo mínimo, el estado garantiza la mitad de lo que a esta persona le falte para alcanzar el salario básico.  El salario básico en el Ecuador es $370 mensuales.  Bajo este esquema, una persona con cero ingresos recibiría $185 mensuales.  Una persona con $200 en ingresos recibiría $85, y una persona con ingresos de $370 o más recibiría $0.  
El número de ecuatorianos mayor de edad es 9 millones.  Existen aproximadamente 3 millones de declaraciones de impuesto a la renta, lo que significa que todas estas personas por lo menos ganan $11.000 al año.  Quedan 6 millones.  Los beneficiarios del bono de desarrollo humano (bono solidario) llegan a más de 1.3 millones de ecuatorianos.  Bajo este esquema, estas personas pudieran recibir $155 mensuales suponiendo que tuvieran $0 ingresos, y poniendo el ingreso del impuesto a la renta como tope.  
Sin embargo, en base a estudios de ingresos en el Ecuador publicados por el INEC, podemos llegar a la conclusión que el 14% de las 6 millones de personas ganan menos del salario básico.  Esto equivale a 840.000 personas.  Si decimos que de estas nadie tiene ingresos (algo muy poco probable), este esquema pudiera repartir $240 mensuales a estas personas con lo que actualmente el estado quita a la ciudadanía en impuesto a la renta.  Esto significa un excedente de $55 por persona, lo que significa un excedente de $555 millones al presupuesto anual del estado, lo que a su vez significa una posible reducción del 20% en impuesto a la renta.  Cabe recalcar que presumo que la única razón válida para cobrar un impuesto a la renta es para redistribuir a los necesitados en un país.  
Salud.  La manera de garantizar la salud de todos los ecuatorianos es a través de un mecanismo de vales de seguro de salud para personas con ingresos menores.  Digamos que las personas que necesitan ayuda para comprar un seguro son aquellas que ganan menos de $11.000/año, es decir 6 millones de personas.  Con el presupuesto actual de salud, se pudiera ofrecer un vale anual por un valor de $586,65 a todas estas personas.  Con esto pudieran comprar el seguro de su preferencia y utilizarlos en el centro de salud de su preferencia.  
Educación.  Al igual que en salud, la educación garantizada viene a través de un sistema de vales educativos.  La población ecuatoriana, de acuerdo al último censo, incluye alrededor de 6 millones de jóvenes ecuatorianos entre 0 y 18 años de edad.  Digamos que aquellos jóvenes que necesitarían ayuda para pagar su educación corresponden a los hogares del 66% de personas que no declaran impuesto a la renta.  Quedamos con alrededor de 4 millones de jóvenes ecuatorianos elegibles para recibir los vales.  Con el presupuesto actual, los vales tuvieran un valor anual de sobre los $1.000, monto suficiente para pagar una buena educación en cualquier rincón de la patria.  
También debemos mencionar que esto ni siquiera considera los gigantescos recortes necesarios en burocracia y otros sectores del presupuesto del estado.  La triste realidad es que con un gobierno inteligente pudiéramos garantizar un sueldo mínimo, educación, salud, además de reducir impuestos.  

Fuentes:

Bandera de la República del Ecuador: Siglo XXI.

La bandera del Ecuador es bella, ¡bella! Se parece mucho a la bandera de Venezuela, y se parece mucho a la bandera de Colombia.  Esto como se sabe, se debe a la historia común de las tres naciones, pues por una década (y un poco más), estas naciones formaron lo que se conoce como La Gran Colombia.

Cuando se separó el departamento del sur, Quito, la nueva república adoptó, naturalmente, otra bandera.  Hubo variaciones pero la primera bandera oficial del Ecuador fue esta:


Luego de la Batalla de Guayaquil (conflicto trascendente en la guerra civil de 1859) en septiembre de 1860, Gabriel García Moreno creó un gobierno provisional en Quito con el Ecuador reunificado. Desde ese entonces, la bandera de los ecuatorianos ha sido esta (igual a la de Colombia):


Por varias razones, incluyendo por el simple hecho de que el mundo identifique la bandera ecuatoriana como si fuera la de Colombia (la única vez que no hay confusión es cuando se pone el escudo, y esto es inapropiado para banderas civiles según protocolo), se podría proponer otro diseño diferente al colombiano y al venezolano:



Otra opción sería reunificar Ecuador y Colombia bajo un solo estado.

Monday, March 9, 2015

Stoned Aphorisms

Originally written in the year of our lord 2007, the following are the Stoned Aphorisms (Or the nonsensical ramblings of a young man high out of his mind).  



All it takes is a single spark at early childhood to shape the remaining of it.  – All it took was a pack of trading cards –

You know when I really believe your are really challenged mentally by another person? When many life projects of ingenuity involve its participation.  

JA!

And I’l Analayze it!!

I think I’m getting carried away.  

Knowledge is Power!!

Too many layers will not be more cryptic, it will become nonsense.  

Lost the groove!

Gould should be enjoyed about your life.

Gould is so fucking smart.

At final cut we would need to trim it down.  Save cad ones for coda copy

Why MUST I THINK THE WORST? (not all capitals in this one.  Just I).)

It’ll explode on  variatti 15!

“I’M ALLOWED TO DISCOVER”

I truly understand stoner culture.

It’s too personal to describe… (referring to the Goldberg Variations played by Gould).

It’s just too personal

Gould fascinated me too much I got wntralied in it.

You will eventually rationaliyze everything.  Don’t let it get to you.  

WE MUST WRITE THIS (A NEW ONE!) AFTER THE BEGINNING OF EACH CHOSEN PIECE OF MUSCI!!!! – R E V E L A T I O N!

Hahahahaha…. Incredible.  

I’ll figure it out while sober!!! Or will I be able to??... it’ll be lost forever!

FUCK!

CONSPIRCAY FROM COMPUTER MAKERS!!! WTF!!!

I SOMETIMES THINK I DO NOT KNOW HOW MUCH I NEED HER (no capitals)

Too many solution! Can’t get out of it!

Se me ocurian y me iba de largo!!

Philosphers are madman because they excuse, rationalize everything.  

Am I that inconsistent that I write all this garbage that nobodoy understands.  Is this a sign for things to come?

Beethoven era Rockero!

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

Genius and Age of Parents

In the United Kingdom, the average age of fathers is 32.6.  In 1990 that age was 30.8.  The average age of mothers in the UK is 29.7, and in 1990 used to be 27.7.  The average age of first time parents in the European Union is 27.7, in the United States 25.65, in Japan 28.71.  Data indicating the average age of fathers and mothers (not necessarily with regards to first-borns) in other developed nations was not found.  However, given the similarity in demographic data within this theme, it would not be completely ludicrous to assume that average parent age would not deviate more than two years that from what has been found in the United Kingdom.  

With this in mind an idea should enter into debate.  And please do understand that the following hypothesis is nothing more than an idea, as no conclusive statistical work (in fact, what was been carried out is a very rudimentary data collection to say the least) has been completed.  Nonetheless, it is rather interesting to note the consistent older age at which humanity’s geniuses were conceived.  From the following sample of 52 great minds, we find that the average age of the father was 36.73, with the average age of the mother to be 29.55.  The median age of the father lays at 37, while the median age of a genius mother is 28.  While the average and median for both parents combined is 33.29 and 32.50 respectively.  This becomes even more considerable when we factor in the fact that life expectancy and average parent age consistently increases over time.  

Name
Age of Father
Age of Mother
Name
Age of Father
Age of Mother
Adam Smith
23
29
Kierkegaard
57
45
Aldous Huxley
34
32
Lincoln
31
25
B. Franklin
49
39
Michelangelo
31

Bach
40
41
Mozart
37
36
Beethoven
31
24
Newton
37
20
Bertrand Russell
30
28
Nietzsche
31
18
Brahms
27
44
Orwell
46
28
Carl Jung
33
27
Pascal
35
27
Cervantes
38
27
Poe
25
22
Da Vinci
25

Raphael
48

Dali
32
30
Rembrandt
38
37
Dante Alighieri
55

S. Hawking
37
27
Darwin
43
44
Schiller
36
27
Descartes
33
30
schopenhauer
41
22
Dickens
27
23
Schubert
34
41
Dostoyevsky
32
21
Shakespeare
33
27
Einstein
32
21
Stuart Mill
33

Freud
41
21
Tchaikovsky
45
28
Galileo
44
26
Tesla
37
34
Goethe
39
18
Thomas Edison
43
37
Hegel
37
29
Tolstoy
31
38
Hitchens
40
28
Twain
37
32
Jefferson
35
22
Verdi
28
26
John Locke
26?
35
Voltaire
44
34
Kant
42
27
Von Humboldt
49
28
Kepler
24
25
Wagner
43
39



So, what can we make of this data? Absolutely nothing as far as a scientific method is concerned.  But it nevertheless should be taken into account because science on this matter tells us about the relationship between parent age and child disease and birth defects.  The older the parent, science tells us, the greater the likelihood of some undesirable characteristic in the child.  However, data collection in this study suggests otherwise: The older the parent, the greater the likelihood of producing a genius.  

The hope of this study is for its hypothesis to be tested with rigor.  There is, of course, the fact that older parents usually build more stable homes, where a child can develop more at ease and with greater stimulus; a socioeconomic explanation.  There might also be a biological explanation whereby the age of parents, as has already been proven by current science, affects the likelihood of genetic distortion in the newborn.  However, this could also mean increased likelihood of genius, and not only undesirable outcomes like autism, Down syndrome or schizophrenia.  

In any case, this underdeveloped analysis would prove valuable if it can act as a seed for a better study that can produce conclusions that provide a greater understanding of our existence.  

References:


Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Something about Diamond's Guns, Germs & Steel...

     Initially published over twelve years ago, Guns, Germs & Steel by Jared Diamond has become one of the most transcendental books that try to explain the differences in development among the societies of the world. It was awarded the Pulitzer Prize and an Aventis award in 1998. Further, the book has become essential reading for anyone interested in the subject. It has become a required text for university courses and even spawned a National Geographic documentary in 2005.
Diamond, a professor of Geography and Physiology at the University of California in Los Angeles, begins his book by telling us about Yali’s question. Yali is a New Guinea native who allegedly asked our author, “Why is it that you white people developed so much cargo and brought it to New Guinea, but we black people had little cargo of our own?” (Pp. 14). Yali’s question is Diamond’s research purpose in his book, which is to try and give the reasons why some parts of the world, namely Eurasia and North America, produced more technology, wealth and power than the other corners of our world.
The main approach one should take into consideration when reading this book is that Diamond has set a clear thesis to his writing and strictly tries to defend it. He believes that the reasons why some societies grew stronger while others did not are because of environmental factors and not because of racial or moral characteristics. He argues that factors such as wildlife, plants and geography have affected the outcomes we see today.
For instance, he argues, perceptibly, the importance of food production. Hunter-gatherers experienced a shorter lifespan, inferior nutrition and nomadic lifestyles which disabled the chance of them ever starting a civilization. Thus, food production is key and Diamond argues that the advent of farming began, among other similar reasons of ecology, when hunter-gatherers saw their wildlife sources depleted. In point of fact, in the chapter To Farm or Not to Farm, Diamond outlines 5 main causes for the invention of farming. Similarly, the availability of appropriate wildlife also constituted a major factor in the development of societies. A key example Diamond mentions in his book is that of the availability of domesticable animals. Pigs, cattle and chickens were found in Eurasia, while zebras, elephants and lions were found in Sub-Saharan Africa. The point here lies in that even though Africa contains such a vast megafuna, virtually no animal in the region is able to become a farm animal, even to this day, they are not domesticable.
To mention another example, Diamond also places great emphasis on the geographical distribution of the world. He argues that Eurasia could initiate trade (and therefore development) because of its predominantly east to west axis. Travel (and thus trade) was easier given that Eurasia experienced a relatively smoother terrain and similar weather conditions throughout, thus allowing for the diffusion of plants, animals and people. Conversely, the Americas visibly hold a North to South axis where conditions change, making travel and trade much more difficult than in Eurasia. For example, the jungle in Central America barred the possibility of the domesticable llama from the Andes to ever reach Mexico which resulted in the civilizations of the northern hemisphere to remain without pack animals, a trait critical for development.
And perhaps the most telling of all examples is that of time. Eurasians experienced an overwhelming head start in the development of their societies than those of the Americas. As a matter of fact, Diamond writes, “…humans have occupied Eurasia for about a million years, far longer than they have lived in the Americas. According to archaeological evidence, humans entered the Americas at Alaska only around 12,000 B.C., spread south of the Canadian ice sheets as Clovis hunters a few centuries before 11,000 B.C., and reached the southern tip of South America by 10,000 B.C.” (Pp. 363).


Many past reviewers have exemplified this work and its validity is unquestionable. The assumption of the environment as the sole cause in the development of mankind is astonishingly supported and defended throughout the book. In point of fact, all the reasons mentioned in every chapter have undoubtedly influenced the history of the societies of the world. However, Diamond does leave room for suspicion, and the weaknesses that could be argued come not in the form of incoherence, but in omission. Had he not relied so strictly on the assumption that environmental causes are the only responsible agents for the development of societies, this intent to point out the weaknesses of the book would not be possible. Guns, Germs & Steel, Diamond says, caused the differences in societies, but he fails to mention other phenomena.
The problem with Diamond’s, admittedly, remarkable book is that he fails to consider other aspects such as the genetic evolution of human development. Science has produced evidence[1] that seems to indicate that natural selection molds the species that inhabit this planet; human beings are not an exception. With this in mind, Darwin’s theory of evolution is ignored by Diamond; at no point in his book does he open the possibility of natural selection playing a part in the evolution of societies. It cannot be that far-fetched that within thousands of years of conditioning – probably initially due to the facts Diamond does discuss – human beings in different environments evolved genetically in different ways.
We know that the different characteristics of physical traits are the product of different environmental factors. For instance, black human beings became black because it allowed them to be more tolerant of the sun; on the contrary, red headed people who predominantly exist towards the North Pole are not very tolerant of the sun’s rays precisely because they evolved in a part of the Earth where the presence of sun is weaker. Likewise, we have other several different physical traits in human beings that have presented themselves because human beings are excellent in adapting to their environments. With this in mind, why can’t it also be that our genetic evolution also changed our mental characteristics?
Recent studies have pointed out how humans can actually change their DNA within one’s lifetime[2], therefore there should be no doubt that thousands of years of different conditioning would produce different capacities among peoples. The abilities of an individual are only partly environmental, they are also genetic. And the capacities innate of their genetics are inherent to the previous conditioning of the individual’s ancestor. Genetics determine the ability of individuals. Thus, if a child is born to a line of ancestors that has been receiving an education for greater periods of time, that child will most probably have a greater faculty than a child who is born to a line of ancestors who were not educated.
So, as mentioned already, the problem with Guns, Germs & Steel is not a lack of thoroughness in his arguments, but rather the omission of a great part of the puzzle. Had Diamond resisted on outlining his thesis as simply the environmental factors that influenced the development of societies instead of trying to insist that all the reasons for the difference in development are environmental, room for criticism would have been vastly reduced.
At the very least, he should have included a chapter addressing the topic of genetic inheritance and admitting to the fact of differences in human beings at birth because of ancestor background. Then explain that the reasons for the different ancestor backgrounds were those of environment, consequently, it would have inhibited scrutinizing readers from pointing out weaknesses.
In all, the omission of what I consider a crucial aspect in human (and societal) development does not diminish the importance and excellence of this book. He has produced some amazing insights into the subject that have been impossible to reject. Objectively, Diamond does try to answer one of the most controversial and difficult questions ever placed on the social sciences and philosophy.



[1] Specific details of these investigations can be readily found on many publications in the subject. Furthermore, agreement with the point in question is part of a general scientific knowledge (i.e. Darwin’s theory of evolution).
[2] http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/labnotes/archive/2008/07/01/train-your-mind-change-your-dna.aspx
__________________________
Works:
Diamond, Jared M. Guns, germs, and steel the fates of human societies. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1997. Print.
"Michael Levin's review of Jared Diamond, Guns, Germs, and Steel - Stalking the Wild Taboo." L. R. Andrews, Inc. - Home. Web. 18 Oct. 2009. .
"Train Your Mind, Change Your DNA - Lab Notes Blog - Newsweek.com."Newsweek Blogs - Blogs. Web. 18 Oct. 2009. .

Thursday, January 8, 2009

The first post...

Of all the thoughts inundating my mind I am now staring in thoughtlessness.