How to Solve Housing Crisis

Due to high demand and short supply, finding a rental home became next to impossible. Corrupt and spoiled real estate agencies do not make life better but abusing their control over this valuable recourse. Real estate market nearly turned into neo-feudalism where robber barons of real estate exploit tenants. 

Fresh radical measures are needed to fix this abysmal situation. Investment properties should stop functioning like noble titles and work more like services on the market.

First of all, we need to radically increase the number of available rental properties. To that end we need higher tax on properties as well as extra tax on unoccupied properties. That would put pressure on them to rent everything they have out.

Second, we need a serious restructuring on how real estate agencies and agents operate. To achieve that we need a mandatory ethics code on real estate agencies, with hefty fines. We should also ban real estate agents from working in the industry if they violate the code. Harsher regulations on real estate agents would prevent them from acting like robber barons and force them to act like personnel in any other industry.

Some other measures in addition to these should be considered to further improve the situation.

Only radical measures can fix rental market that have long gone out of control. Government should act as soon as possible to fix this problem to avoid society devolving into neo-feudalism.

Athenian Democracy was Based

 

Athenian Democracy was the most based form of government in history. It was responsive to citizens, had internal peace, excelled in commerce, science, philosophy, athletics and warfare. It was a success in pretty much all aspects in life and had highest human development possible. 

Athens were better than autocratic Persian Empire, much better than degenerate muscle head Sparta and still better than Roman oligarchic Republic.

Athenian Democracy was an individualist hedonistic egoistic paradise on earth. Here I will outline all the aspects of this success story.

Citizenship

Athens had a clear and active system of citizenship. Athens divided people into citizens, non-citizens and slaves. 

Citizens could participate in government but also had to defend the state. Non-citizens were free to live and do their business in the city and slaves were considered property of their owners.

It distinguished between individuals who has a stake in the system and therefore a say in country affairs from those who do not. That allowed people to both see and control that actions government takes are for the benefit of citizens. There was no situation where franchise was so large and dispersed, that government ignored certain sections of citizens. Outsiders or women had no say.

That produced a body of citizens with vested interest in Athenian State whose personal interests were connected to those of the Athenian State. Each citizens security, status and privileges were connected to existence and functioning of Athenian State, thus creating insensitive to participate in state governance and contributing to its prosperity.

While citizens were expected to fight in the military, they could also clearly see that they are risking their lives to defend their own interests, rather than those of the detached elites. That in turn produced a motivated and well-trained military that won no less that much more vaunted Spartans. 

Democracy

Direct democracy where each individual citizen could attend the assembly and vote on every law and issue in the state is essential part of citizen's satisfaction and loyalty to the system. After all people would not fight for a state that does not do what they want. Direct democracy ensured that state was always in touch with its citizens interests and well-being.

Anti-Feminism

Unlike Sparta, Athens did not consider women citizens, did not allowed them to participate in the assembly or vote. In general women were considered property of men rather than people in their own right. Women were typically kept in dark room at the back of the home, much like Muslims do nowadays.

That ensure that men's logical thinking, free of female hysteria, controlled all decision making.

In nearby Sparta, that allowed women more rights it led towards Kraterocracy and Social Darwinism as women tend to favor such policies, erroneously believing they produce stronger men. Military wise Sparta was no better than Athens and culture and science wise it was stone-age level primitive. Spartan quality of life was miserable, comparable with Somalia and North Korea. Its government was an oligarchy of old men.

In contrast Athens were healthy, young and vigorous democracy precisely because they avoided the mistake of giving women any rights. 

Life in Athens

Athens excelled in pretty much every scientific or cultural field imaginable. Founders of modern science and technology were all Athenians. Philosophers as well. Wisely organized life, outlined above, allowed Athenians to create all these things we now enjoy.

Sparta could not create science because their society were anti-science and anti-culture. Gerontocracy, women rights and Social Darwinism where the reasons why Sparta did not produce a single philosopher or scientist. 

Athens excelled at sports too. People were as physically adept as they were intellectually. Athens aspired for its people to developed in every aspect. In contrast Sparta only produced brain-dead muscleheads.

Outcome

Things produced by Athenian are foundation of our modern science, culture, technology and philosophy. This city is rightfully capital and biggest city of modern Greece.

In contrast killing of weak policy of Sparta led to them exterminating nearly all of their population and falling in obscurity. Nowadays Sparta is but a small village.

All that proves that Athenian Way is the Right Way.

Rome's Transition from Democracy into Kraterocracy

Despite Democracies and Kraterocracies are polar opposites if each other, occasionally transitions from one into another happen. Such transitions are often violent and chaotic, and society tries to adopt itself to a new reality. Modern trend tends to mostly flip Kraterocracies into Democracies, but the opposite also happens. Most famous transition into Democracy was French Revolution and most famous transition into Kraterocracy was fall of Roman Republic and rise of Roman Empire. 

Here I will explain why both of these, and other transitions happened and how such transitions normally go. This article is about Rome going from Democracy to Kraterocracy. I will write a separate one on the transition from Kraterocracy into Democracy.

From Democracy to Kraterocracy

Ancient Rome's transiton from Democracy (Republic) into Empire (Kraterocracy) is the most famous of such events. That does not happen just to backward Africans in Somalia and Uganda. The jevel and pride of Western Civiliation, Rome, was reduced to rubble and plunged into Dark Ages. What Kraterocracy destroyed over the course of couple of centuries, took more than 15 to build back. 

Why it Happened.

CGPGrey in his videos claimed that when some very valuable resource that dwarfs all other sources of income is found, then country turns into dictatorship. That happened to one of the most famous Republics in history, Roman Republic. Except the resource Ceasar found is rather trivial by modern standards: land. 

Before becoming dictator for life Ceasar spend a lot of time in Gaul (modern France), conquering and subjugating Gaul in the name of Rome. People talk a lot about crossing of Rubicon or famous opulence of early Roman Empire. However, there is surprisingly little information as to why it happens. To be more precise too little analysis of existing information. It is very likely that Ceasar found a lot of valuable goods, such as gold in his campaign, he also took many of the conquered Gauls into slavery.

However, what there was one thing, more valuable that gold or slaves and that is land. Italy is not very bountiful when it comes to agriculture, back in Roman times it did not produce enough to feed Rome. Rome imported grain from Egypt, making relationship with this state paramount. In addition to that shipping of this grain from Egypt to Rome was equally essential. 

These are all complex operations that required traders, shipbuilders, crew and so on. To manage all that a complex republican form of government was needed. People who do all these operations are essential for functioning of the Roman state, thus they all had to have a say in how the state and society operates.

However, most fertile in Europe land of Gaul (modern France) paired with readily available slaves from Gaul to work on it made all these structures unnecessary. All that was needed for prosperity was a strong army to force Gauls to work the land for their new Roman masters. Unlike educated Italians who with their trading and shipbuilding skills could just sail away from dictatorship, primitive Gauls knew no other way to live but to toil land. 

Possibly Gaul's psychology also made them more slave-able than Italians. Perhaps the entire tribe will submit if their leader surrenders. So, they had no choice, but work for their new Roman masters, Ceaser and his successors rather than the whole Rome to precise.

It is these facts that allowed Ceasar to cross Rubicon and install himself as dictator for life. It is these facts that kept this system in place even after Senate assassinated Ceasar. Ceasar needed loyalties of his own legionaries to take on Roman Republic. They would not have fought for a whim of one man, he had to offer them enough wealth to switch their loyalty to him from the Republic. Whatever Ceasar and his legionaries have found in Gaul was more than what Republic could have paid them, so they backed Ceasar against the Republic and then backed Augustus when Senate assassinated Ceasar.

After winning civil war, Ceaser alto took direct control over Egypt, further solidifying his and military's grip on food production. 

That is how Roman Republic have fallen to the rule of the military. First it became autocratic populism and then eventually Kraterocracy.

Why Roman Empire was a Kraterocracy rather than Monarchy.

Some people envision Rome as a monarchy where good and enlightened King rules together with his trusted advisors and Senate. It was anything but, there was no any succession laws and for every occasional designated successor, several more became Emperors as a result of coup or downright civil wars. For all effective purposes it was a Kraterocracy, a system where strongest or most cunning takes power by either assassinating his predecessor or defeating him on the battlefield. 

Even during so called Principate time of the early Empire many of the Emperors such as unpopular Tiberius, crazy Caligula or infamous Nero only held their power because military supported them. However, no matter how crazy Caligula was in the eyes of Romans, he was loyal enough towards his legions, so they simply forced everyone to accept his rule. Caligula was eventually assassinated.

By crisis of the 3rd century and so-called Tetrarchy, Rome effectively evolved (or devolved) into an institutionalized Kraterocracy. Every time previous emperor dies or killed, his top generals take legions under their command and fight their peers until only one out of four remains. He becomes next emperor and keeps power for as long as he manages to dodge assassination attempts.

How Kraterocracy Destroyed Rome

One trivial but erroneous answer would be war. Constant civil war since crisis of the 3rd century surely contributed to damage. Even more misguided would be to blame it on barbarians, that "conquered" Rome in 476.

However, neither of these were as important to the final outcome as the damage to social structures and social contract that Kraterocracy wrecked on Rome. Society only works together if they are united by common benefit or common gain. 

A pirate crew is united by prospects of sharing the loot. They perform their individual tasks on the ship, work together and risk their lives all for this material gain from the loot they can steal. Take common gain away and crew will disperse. 

Society fundamentally works the same way, so long as system can promise its members significant material gain for their contribution, they work in the system. Take that gain away and society falls apart. 

Roman Kraterocracy took that gain away. No matter what one did, it was impossible to match wealth or power of the emperor or his legionaries. Some more benevolent emperors, like Augustus spend some of this wealth on people to buy their loyalty and sympathy. Later emperors stopped doing that and crowds deserted them. 

Crisis of the 3rd century was the final nail in the coffin. The fed-up crowd tried to restore the Republic by lynching one of the barracks emperors only to see him being replaced with another barracks emperor.

Disillusioned with such a cynical slap in the face, citizens of Rome, started to ignore the society and fend for themselves. Rome as a polity and a nation essentially ceased to exist. Emperors and their legions were left on to exist on their own. 

Sure, some vestiges of Roman system, such as Senate continued in Byzantine Empire, but that was more a facade than a political body with real power: a folly, born from emperor's desire to keep appearance and legacy of the republic. Similar to how some African leaders imitate western world, so called cargo cult. 

Emperor's personalist rule managed to last a century in the east due to very defensible position of city of Constantinople, that could be defended with only a handful of soldiers. Every so often the eastern empire would be reduced to controlling only this city by invaders from either Balkans or Anatolia. 

Emperor's personalist rule in the West disintegrated under its own mismanagement in 476. Unable to recruit Roman soldiers from disillusioned Romans, Emperors went to replace them with German mercenaries. Eventually these mercenaries supplanted Romans and military force in charge.

Some of the disillusioned Roman citizens went on to found new trade republics, such as Venice, Genoa, Amalfi, Zara and Ragusa.

However, all these were but shadows of the society Rome once had. Culture, education, prosperity and quality of life, all of that fell to Kraterocracy. A once shining pinnacle of civilization became nothing more than rubble where Germanic tribes fought for control of what was left of the former glory.

Dark Ages slowly evolved into equally backward Middle Ages. It not until more than a millennium later, that Europe even attempted to bring back Roman glory during Renascence. 

Germany Saved Western Liberal Democracy from Kraterocracy of Stalinism

 

Many people who criticize Nazi Germany tend to overlook the fact that they were the last bulwark against totalitarian Stalinism of USSR.

Yes, Nazis were authoritarian, and they committed crimes against humanity, but they fought against the communist enemy that was even more authoritarian and committed even more crimes against humanity.

My own experience of growing up in Russia made me experience a lot of Social Darwinism, cronyism, favoritism, double standards and hypocrisy. It was (and probably still is) a country that does not care for its people and treat them as expendable resource or cannon fodder for its ruling class. No one was safe from ruling class abuses and exploitation.

During Stalin times that was even more evident that it is now. By 1930 even Trotsky and Mayakovski, who helped build USSR, disowned it as abomination and became vocal opponents of Stalin's abominable rule.

In contrast Nazis at the very least cared for their own people, even if they oppressed some others.

So, Nazis were bad guys, but they were fighting to protect Europe from something much-much worse than them.

People who believe in communist lies about peace and equality are stupid at best, hypocrites who want to plunge world into Kraterocracy at worst.

De-Facto US - Chinese Border

If you look on conventional map of the world, you will not see a border between these two countries as they are far away from each other. However, in reality there is an informal sort of border, that divides Asia into Chinese and American spheres of influence. 

Geo-politics in Asia are still dominated by Cold War Era military conflict between US and China. Nowadays the US and China try to trade and work together, but old battle lines from previous wars still remain. 

First Chinese American War 1950 - 1953

The Korean War ended up determining the borders between Chinese and American spheres of influence. Both sides wanted to take it all. 

Back in 1950s Kim Il Sung invaded, intending to push Americans out into the sea and unite Korea under his rule. Americans did not expect that, so they temporarily retreated to Busan but then reinforced they numbers and pushed all the way to Yalu River, intending to end Kim Il Sung rule for good and unite Korea under Seoul government. Americans reached Yalu River temporarily, reducing Kim Il Sung control to some pockets of resistance in mountains. Then China interfered on Kim Il Sung side with their 1 million volunteers. China too intended to push Americans out of Korea and Asia, they temporarily took Seoul but were eventually kicked out of there by the US. 

Eventually conflict reached stalemate on where is now Korean DMZ. China could not push any further south against the US resistance and the US could not push any further north against Chinese resistance. Eventually they agreed on cease-fire as further fighting was futile.

This DMZ serves as de facto border between the US and China. Somewhat recently after the North Korean rocket tests, the US probed on China over the North Korea issue. The US wanted to know if China will interfere on North Korean side, if the US invades North Korea to put an end to Nuclear Tests. The Chinese response vaguely confirmed that they will protect Kim's regime with military force.

How that Affects Modern World

The Korean DMZ is still a border between China and America, or in a broader sense, between American and Chinese worlds. 

After all each side have a number of other countries and people, plugged into their system. Each side has their own version of Korea for example. Chinese one is starving dystopian state that builds nuclear weapons. American one is prosperous market economy that builds Galaxy Smartphones instead.

That is why DMZ is still much more heavily fortified compared to other international borders, dividing Korea into Chinese and American halves.

To much of the Chinese annoyance, American side also has an American China, commonly known as Taiwan. Chinese probing over the Taiwan issues also showed that the US will defend it militarily, should China try to invade Taiwan. So as much as China wants to take Taiwan, it cannot. The geography of Taiwan favors America, giving China no chance of military victory. Because of that China occasionally flies its jets around Taiwan, unable to do anything about it.

In contrast in Indochina (Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos) geography instead favored China. That allowed them to wage a successful war to push Americans out of Indochina and abolishing American Viet Nam together with Amercian Cambodia and Laos. The famous Viet Nam war would have lasted as long as American invasion into Grenada in 1984, if China and USSR were not fighting on the side of North Vietnamese government of Ho Chi Minh. After more than decade of trying to defend American Vietnam, the US withdrawn and let China had it. Now there is only one Chinese Viet Nam.

The southern border likely goes around Thailand. 

That leaves Laos, Cambodia and Myanmar in Chinese camp. Dictatorship of Hun Sen and PPC in Cambodia does suggest that its under China. Pro American Sam Rainsy party is suppressed there. Viet Nam and Laos are one party dictatorships officially, so there is no any doubt here. Finally, Myanmar with its military government is also a likely part of Chinese world.

Chinese tried to flip Thailand to its side with Taksim Shinawatra party projects, but Thai military would remove him from power to avoid becoming Bejing puppet, just like its many northern neighbors.

Why Borders are Like That

One might want to talk about people's will and freedom to choose, but there are a number of examples in the area that show it's not what decides the outcome. For example, in Myanmar people protest military rule to no effect. In Thailand Taksim is banned from politics, yet comebacks by stealth with his left-wing populism. No one in their sane mind would even consider that people of North Korea would choose Kim Jong Un over the South Korean politics and lifestyle. Yet it's the reality for people in these countries.

The reason for that are differences in how American style and Chinese style militaries operate. 

American military strength lies in Air Force and Navy. Thus, Americans are strong on sea and on flatlands, in the desert or open, forest less mountains. Such areas allow Airforce to easily and effectively target every military unit on the ground and eliminate them.  Areas that fit this description are either liberal democracies or otherwise pro-American.

On the other hand, China is strong in heavily forested or swampy areas. Airforce or other military equipment is not effective there. Because of that military outcomes boil down to number of soldiers on each side. Here China has advantage over the US simply because its population is higher than that of the America.

That is why Korea DMZ lies where it is. South of that line are flatlands surrounded by sea, where the US Air Force can obliterate everything. China does not date step there. 

On the other hand, north lies mountains covered in forests. Tanks cannot go up the mountain, planes and helicopter pilots cannot see the enemy positions under the leaves and branches of the trees. Thus, infantry has to do battle, but that means casualties and unlimitedly the one who can muster more infantrymen under their command.

Other areas in Chinese world all share this common characteristic. Thick Jungle of Viet Nam, Laos, Cambodia or Myanmar are areas where American might cannot penetrate. The US struggled to fix that in Viet Nam war, destroying Jungle with Agent Orange to create visibility for Air Force, but to no effect.

This geographic reality combined with technological ability determines the reality of the current world. Dividing it into Chinese and American sides. 

Paradox of Nation's Wealth

The biggest paradox that exists in our world is the fact that prosperity of the nation is opposite proportional to the wealth of natural recourses the nation has.

Take any place that is so barren it cannot produce enough food to feed itself (either due to being a desert of too far north to have enough sunlight for crops to grow) and you will likely see one of the topmost prosperous nations of the world.

On the other hand, take any county where food grows by itself in abundance and land is rich with gold, diamonds and other valuable recourses and likely you will see a dysfunctional society in constant civil war that suffers from starvation and all possible social ailments.

Common sense suggest that it should be the other way around. That rises question of why reality defies that common sense. 

Wealthy resources should generate prosperity for the nation, not make it poorer and more miserable. Why it's the other way around? However, reality keeps showing us that it does not. Diamond and gold rich Central African Republic, gold and what not rich Uganda or most other African countries are all examples of poverty and misery. 

Even more paradoxical is how countries too barren of any valuable resources somehow prosper against all odds. Japan or Finland has neither diamonds, nor gold. In fact, Finland can't even grow food in their cold northern land and Japan cannot grow enough to feed its huge population. Despite all that not only neither of these countries starve, but they are also among the richest in the world.

What causes these paradoxical and seamlessly illogical outcomes? Here I will write an article that explains why this is the case.

Poor, Resource-Rich Country - Kraterocracy

First a rule of thumb. If a wealth of nation is dug out of the earth, then intelligence, productivity and any other such abilities become irrelevant. 

If one wins and controls the source of wealth with violence, then violence is all that matters in such societies. Its economy, stupid. Thus, smart people in such prosperous societies would not build spaceships or make scientific discoveries. Simply because doing these things would not make one rich. The only thing that does is violence.

Wealth attracts rivals who wants to take it away. Thus, poorly defended prosperity would attract either internal or external rival who would try to take it away. That is why countries such as Poland occasionally invaded by Germany and Russia who covet Polish lands that are more fertile than Germany's or Russia's own.

After all, said and done the strongest military force would emerge as a control of the source of wealth by simply eliminating all its rivals to power. The are de facto ruled by Kraterocracy.

Why Resources Rich Countries are Backward and Unable to Innovate

No one builds anything sophisticated and progressive in Kraterocracy. Because even if one manages to build something awesome and profitable, then warlord in charge would simply steal this thing from you, keeping you as poor as before, if not poorer. 

Because of that smart people in such societies who capable of innovating, building spaceships and advancing science, do not do so out of principle and lack of personal benefits from doing so. Smart people in Kraterocracy either plot a coup, wage a civil war, flee such place for some other more smart people friendly one. If they unable to do either of these things, they kill themselves, wither slowly with alcohol and drugs or faster with lethal force.

Because of that it is pointless to try to educate people in places like Central African Republic or send them material aid. Aid would be stolen by their rich warlords and education would only help them realize pointlessness of trying to change such society.

Why Resources Rich Countries are getting Stupider with Each Generation

To make matters worse. Recourses rich societies keep getting progressively stupider with each new generation. Warlords in charge have all the insensitive to keep people as retarded as possible. Its naive to think that a smart person would not figure out a way to get rid of you and take your place. All stupid dictators who thought this way have long perished at the hands of their aides who then took their place. Those aides then knew better to eliminate anyone smart before they could eliminate them. 

Over time this dictator self-preservation process would live the country filled with people who are too retarded to organize the coup or start a civil, simply because that is safer for those in power.

That eventually leads to a country where ruling family/elite is fabulously rich and prosperous, while common men are not only miserable rich but also stone age stupid.

Since dictator can fear a coup even within their own family, then they would be incentivized to keep even their children too stupid to organize a coup.

Eventually the whole country would be filled with retarded idiots and the strongest of them would control the country through violence or threat of violence.

Some of these backward African dictatorships might have been both wealthy and prosperous back in pre-historic times but became completely backward nowadays.

What we do know for sure is that Egypt and Iraq used to be fabulously rich, prosperous and technologically advanced. Nowadays they are but shadow of former self.

Why Kraterocracy Routinely Exterminates its Population

This is something a person from an average democracy will consider not only morally abhorrent, but also downright stupid. 

However, thing is very different in Kratorocracy unlike democracy where each person is useful and productive member of society, in Kraterocracy each new core member of the regime is just an extra mouth to feed. 

After all number of diamonds or gold is the mine is the same and does not increase with more people in the society. So, if a person is not essential, then the remaining core members would be better off to simply kill and split his share among themselves. They will keep doing that until only the essential bare minimum of members remains, without whom the system cannot operate.

However, every year more and more potential claimants to this wealth getting born so the regime needs to keep exterminating these extra 'mouths to feed' to avoid shrinkage of their share of profits.

Sycophants in Kraterocracy

Aside from ruling class there is only one other type of person who prospers occasionally prospers in resource rich countries: a sycophant.

After all ruling class have to spend their days somehow and they often indulge themselves in one of another folly.

The folly not necessarily has to be hedonistic or self-aggrandizing in nature. Some of the dictators fancy themselves to be enlightened, benevolent of pious rulers. They might wish to advance science or build churches to showcase this.

However regardless of whether the ruler's folly is hedonistic or altruistic, the dynamics are the same. After all absolutist ruler does not want to hear things, they do not like.

Thus, a type or person, called sycophant, who cater to the ruler's folly, eventually emerges in Kraterocracy. Such people excel in flattering the ruling class and bending their appearances and believes to suit current fashion or tastes of current ruler.  Such people could sometimes amass wealth second only to the ruler himself.

Sycophant is fundamentally an actor who excels at faking whatever role the current ruler desires. In order to truly succeed in fulfilling sometimes rather tall expectations one has to be devoid of any genuinely.

With each new iteration of Kraterocracy, such sycophants would be more and more proficient in flattery, acting skills and faking than in anything else.

Rulers in Kraterocracy could be completely indulged into their delusions and devoid of understanding of reality. After ruler could be delusional about many things in life. Pandering to his delusions and agreeing with everything he said would get you further. In contrast telling them unpleasant truth might incur their wrath and end one's life.

Because of that even if ruler of Kraterocracy wishes to surround himself with scientists to advance science, such scientists will inevitably excel in flattery a lot more than in science. However, skills needed to succeed in such environment and not the same, needed to succeed in actual science. Dynamics of Kraterocracy would lead to the outcome where truly smart would be sidelined by cunning and deceitful. Then fake scientists who inevitably end up around the ruler would produce equally fake science that only looks real at first glance and sometimes completely useless in reality. Recent Medvedev's exercise in (ba)-nano technologies is good example of that.

Kraterocracy Over Time

When strength, cunning and sycophantly are the only skills useful for advancing in society, then overtime society not only hones these, but also gradually sheds away all other skills. Brains needed for science and engineering are not the same needed for navigating complex web of informal social rules and networks of alliances. Overtime even ability to former is lost and social smarts are all that remains.

Complex webs of social rituals and informal rules often permeate Kraterocracy. These keep rulers and privileged members of the elite safe from challengers by making it as hard as possible to advance anywhere in society. Because of that successful ruler of Kraterocracy makes these rules ever more complex and confusing. 

Navigating these becomes full time job for all those who want to get close to wealth and status. Simultaneously they keep all potential rival for the throne pitted against each other, rather than the ruler.

As Kraterocracy grows older, these rules becoming so stiffing, it becomes impossible to achieve anything at all. The society becomes dead end morass.

Because of such rules, Kraterocracy stagnates and eventually falls behind times. Even once unparallel superpowers, such as Roman empire eventually succumbed to this ailment and perish on ash heap of history. 

Why Kraterocracy Cannot Escape This Vicious Circle

Keeping current elite in power often conflicts with all forms of progress and change, thus people in charge prevent any change simply to keep their heads on their shoulders. Sometimes it leads to them losing these heads anyway.

Therefore, Kraterocracy grows progressively more backward and weaker, Unable to escape this vicious circle as mortal man cannot escape aging.

Just like a mortal men cannot escape death, Kraterocracy will eventually succumb to unwieldiness of its rules and collapse from within, unless it destroyed from without first.

All talented people either leave or get eliminated to preserve the power of the elite. 

For during Sengoku Jidai in Japan, modernists iconoclasts such as Oda Nobunaga were able to harness advance technology to pave their way to victory and power. However close to his victory Nobunaga was assassinated by conservative Akechi to preserve status quo. While Akechi lost to Hideyoshi, Hideyoshi did nothing to fundamentally change social structures of Japan. If anything, he only entrenched traditions and unchanging social order. 

After using guns, European technology and help and social mobility to overthrow previous Ashikaga Shogunate and become Shogun himself, Hideyoshi then banned guns, all foreign contact and social mobility so that no one just like him could just arise somewhere to challenge his own grip on power. The following Tokugawa Shogunate, continued this backward slide, eliminating all technology that could pose even theoretical threat to their grip on power.

Modern North Korea bans internet, computers and mobile phones not because they are stupid, but because leadership are afraid that internet can be used to overthrow their rule. That is not unreasonable concern.

Talent and Kraterocracy

However, what is good for rulers of Kraterocracy is not good for individual people or society as a whole. Therefore, smart people born in Kraterocracy wish to emigrate to a different country. Some call it a Brain Drain. However, it's pointless to blame west for this. Talented people have no place in Kraterocracy and cannot achieve anything there. Therefore, it is better that they pursue their talent and lack in non-Kraterocratic countries.

While some Kraterocratic elites do understand importance of science and technology, their societies are fundamentally incapable of rewarding people who possess these skills, much less grow them.

Rich, Resource-Poor Country - Democracy

Now we will look at the polar opposite of the Kraterocracy. A resource poor unlivable country that somehow managed to attain stellar prosperity.

After all, if you look at something like Finland's geography is anything but livable. A lot of it is covered in lakes and swaps so you could not even find a field to grow anything on it. Pastures for cattle are out of question as well. Even if you manage to solve all these problems, there is one other problem, summer is short, and sun barely shines for most plants to fully mature for harvest by the time autumn comes.

Because of all that you need some creative ideas to grow any food on such land. Such creative ideas in turn require smart people to generate them. Dumb people simply could not survive on such land.

Violence cannot help you on such land, taking a farm by force will do you nothing as without knowledge and skill to operate it you will not be able to produce food. That eliminated Kraterocracy as possible form of government.

Because of these tendencies, over time Finnish society becomes smarter and smarter, while simultaneously less and less violent. 

Other knowledge-based societies were Scandinavians and Greeks. Poor land with access to sea allowed them to prosper only by fishing and trade. Once again, these professions require craftsmanship and skill to succeed. You can steal a gold and become rich, but you cannot steal a ship and become rich. You need brains to even run ship, even more brains to actually build one. 

Then finally you need to know where and why sail to actually get to the resources you need to survive. Poles can grow their own crops and eat them with no further thinking needed. A Scandinavian has to figure out what to trade a Pole for his grain or how to steal it from him without getting caught. 

From Survival to Prosperity and Affluence

The intelligence and ingenuity that helped smart people to survive in inhospitable land can further be used to other ends, for example to enhance quality of life. Thus, the more time smart society exists the more and more prosperous it gets. Newer and newer inventions completely transform life and overtime the society becomes very prosperous.

Modern person might even say that Finland or Switzerland is very prosperous. Here however one needs to clarify that it is not Finnish or Swiss land that is rich and prosperous. The land both countries have is some of the worst even by European standards. It's Finnish and Swiss society or state that is prosperous. It's not natural wealth like Kraterocracy but rather manmade wealth created by members of these societies. 

Such wealth cannot be simply stolen by violence. After all, if members of such society will stop producing this wealth, the country will revert back to barren mountains and swamps.

Nature of Resource Poor Society

Because of the above conditions, nature of society is very different from resources rich country. A person who can build a ship can also take it and sail away if he does not like the society he is in, taking his useful shipbuilding skills with him. You cannot coerce someone like him with violence. Thus, a powerful warlord cannot rule such society through violence and coercion.

Because of that resource poor, skill rich societies are fundamentally based on voluntary cooperation or people's consent and typically government through democracy or other inclusive and consultative system. Fundamentally you need everyone to work together voluntary and have state in the society. Discontent can betray such society at any time either openly or by doing poor work that will ruin society. You cannot have that, so you need everyone or almost everyone happy with what you are doing.

To simplify terminology, I will call such societies democracies.

Value of Human Life in a Democracy

Unlike Katerocracy where humans are mostly rivals and competitors for wealth and power, therefore mostly a threat to eliminate mercilessly. In a democracy people are instead valuable members of society. Not simply because democracies are moral and kind but rather because societies like that can only functions by skill and effort of those involved. 

Survival and prosperity in inhospitable lands require a lot of people working together in a complex social structure that addresses all the issues that has to be addresses for mutual survival. If wealth is created by humans, then one needs more humans to create more wealth.

Because of that every lost human, especially in a crucial role, could make such survival less probable, especially if he had crucial skills. Some of such skills require long tertiary education to obtain, making replacement costly and time consuming, someone has to come to uni and study for many years.

Over time such societies tend to become ever more comples, thus requiring more and more skilled workers to keep functionning.

Because of all that value of human life in a democracy is high. 

Often such sentiment extends even to possibly useless members of society such as unemployed, retired or disabled.

Immigrants are also typically welcomed as they too can learn useful skills and then became crucial pieces of the puzzle of common prosperity. 

This maxim of more people = more wealth tended to be taken as an axiom (absolute truth) even if in certain situations extra people only add burden, for example during periods of recession and high unemployment.

Migration into Democracies

The above-mentioned characteristics makes a democratic society a better place to live. That does attract migrants from other places, including Kraterocracies. As much as some like to scoff at notion that people come to the US for Freedom or envy American freedom, it is actually true. 

Some decry it as brain drain that deprives their "home" contries from skilled. employees and keep such places undeveloped and poor. 

However reality is that human skills simply cannot be appreciated by a Kraterocracy. Thus, skilled people who stay or return there after sturies in a democracy, just wasting their skills and time on irrelevant.

Conclusion

All that produces a one-way flow of people from resource rich to resource poor countries. These two types of countries are total polar opposites of each other and everything that holds true for one is the polar opposite in the others. That infamous series of jokes about Russian reversal, such as in America you can always find a party and in Russia the party can always find you. hold true as well.

I will later write a separate article about transitions from Kraterocracy to Democracy and the other way around, as this article is too big already.

What Determines Outcomes of Wars

You do understand that wars are fought using Airforce who bombs down common solders and military installations they could not even see from up there while flying supersonic speeds.

It makes 0 differences if they all as frail as Hatsune Miku or as strong as Arnold Schwarzenegger, given enough fuel and bombs, either US(A)AF or Luftwaffe would obliterate everything and win. The only thing that decides outcomes of wars is the amount of fighter jets, bombers, bombs and jet fuel. Outcome of WWII in particular did boiled down to who could produce more aviation fuel.

All this effort and strength and friendship prevailing over adversity is Hollywood fantasy.

Just for those you who want to ask how it was before aircraft was invented. Artillery was fulfilling role of the Airforce, gunners would fire at enemy positions from many kilometers away based on information from scouts on where the enemy is located. Given enough guns and shells they too could obliterate everything no matter how strong or weak they are.

In future (and partly even today) wars will be fought using unmanned drones controlled remotely by a guy behind computer. Outcomes of future war might as well depend on how fast one can hit keys on keyboard or how well one can handle a joystick. So gamers who play violent video games are future war heroes. As well as programmers (software engineers) who program the drones.