wavefronts interference. The business cycle is not the same wave as the international crisis cycle. This is why you would need computer to search all of fractal patterns and pull out the cycles from the interference.
Could you say the business cycle wave and the "international crisis cycle" wave however you may define them may be interconnected? The A.I. computer has apparently figured that out and it is very complex and it is isn't only the interference of just two cycles. Essentially the computer could map all the possibilities and then determine which complex relationship holds true for all dates for different cyclical events. It isn't really A.I. rather exhaustive search. It might be A.I. in a sense if the computer is altering the structure of what it is searching for based on entropy of its input data set. But as I pointed in my essay, it isn't A.I. in the sense that it is not interacting with the unbounded (in time) entropy of the evolutionary environment: http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html#Algorithm_!=_EntropyTada! http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/04/12/questioning-cycles/ |
|
|
|
http://blog.mpettis.com/2015/02/when-do-we-decide-that-europe-must-restructure-much-of-its-debt/#comment-123414Suvy I wrote CoolPage in 1998 from Nipa Hut in a squalor community in Mindanao. I was infested with weekly bouts of Giardia, had a karaoke blasting in my ear 16 x 7, I'd turn my head and my underwear and spoon would be gone. I reached the low of eating only rice because I had run out of funds and none of my boomer relatives would[n't] loan me even $100 because they wanted to punish me for my decision to go international and rustic.
Sorry there is internet access in most of of the world now. There are some 3 billion at least on the internet by most estimates. Up from a 100 million back when I launched CoolPage. And to think I had a million users and thus 1% of the internet, all coming from a Nipa Hut in squalor.
Sorry you are not making any sense. You need to travel outside the USA more to lose your myopia.
Suvy, when I first explored Manila in 1991 (just after Mt. Pinatubo erupted), I noticed all these smoky, smoldering shantytowns, e.g. tiny abodes in along river banks constructed of scrap materials, and I was wondering where all these sharped dressed professionals strolling by were living. Someone informed me they live in those cardboard shacks with only crawl space. If you saw them at the office you would have never known.
It was quite an eye opener and attitude adjustment for a 26 year old westerner.
|
|
|
|
http://blog.mpettis.com/2015/04/will-the-aiib-one-day-matter/#comment-123478Yes, there certainly should be much more equity financing, or at least financial structures that do not impose financial distress costs. I am struck by the fact that the best developing-country investment story in history was probably the US in the 19th Century, and while there certainly was a lot of external borrowing (and a number of external debt crises, including the very big one after 1837) , much of the capital Europe exported to the US came in the form of equity, including huge land purchases.
But one of the sillier side effects of modern nationalism seems have been a revulsion towards foreign investment in the form of equity... And precisely what changed from the 1800s to the 1900s is the invention of the ubiquitous central bank and its ability to backstop bank runs to borrow from the future to reduce risk of default in the near-term, while leading to systemic collapse (ETA 2018) in the long-term.
Suvy, I agree with you that volatility just implies leverage per some model such as Black-Scholes. Leverage is not inherently evil, is absolutely necessary to maximize efficiency, and rather leverage ratios should instead be regulated by the free market given more transparency[1].
However, equity is not the same asset class as debt, mainly because equity is not fungible whereas with a central bank backstop debt is fungible, but therein lies the systemic collapse end game downside.
|
|
|
|
---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: Fully backed (no leverage) is low entropy, thus greater systemic risk and low efficiencyDate: Sun, April 12, 2015 7:58 am To: "Armstrong Economics" < armstrongeconomics@gmail.com> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Armstrong will be proud of this post, but he may not like the conclusion that central banking is the problem. Aminorex, thank you for helping to elucidate the points about leverage. Your way of explaining has helped greatly. It is the exchange between us that makes it all more clear to readers and ourselves. Kudos! On leverage: It has benefits and drawbacks. The beneficiaries tend to advance it, while the victims denounce it. I see two dominant reasons why leverage should not be categorically condemned: Firstly, any power great enough to impose limits on leverage globally would be a far worse source of systemic instability than the leverage it regulates. Secondly, where there is advantage to be had from a feature of beneficial contract, regulation is doomed to failure, in as much as work-arounds with the same effects seem always to be found. That can't be surprising: As ecosystems become overgrown, mature, every last source of energy for growth is hunted down and extracted. The competitive pressure to do this continues until final resource exhaustion, every time. (Co-evolving species does not help really. It just means the overgrowth and exhaustion occurs quasi-periodically or chaotically. It is only in the infinite limit that the unboundedness of entropy can rescue the system with p -> 1, and then always by reforging it in a new, perhaps higher-, perhaps lower- dimensional, frame - even one which redefines energy itself. This kind of chaotic evolution is a necessary consequence of what we signify as "life" and "mind". Until the substance underlying those notions changes radically, it will persist in some form.)
Excellent. You have articulated my upthread thoughts with more analytical precision. You are even getting into my points from my essay: http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html#Algorithm_!=_EntropyDefinitely higher entropy systems are less systemically risky. The risk is a spread out into chaos. There is too much chaotic friction a.k.a. potential energy (i.e. Taleb's anti-fragility) in high entropy systems. And this is precisely why collectivism is inferior to free markets. On the downside collectivism can quite often (often a century or less, i.e. human lifespan) collapse to near 0, whereas as you allude to below (but you have error which I correct below), high entropy systems have a much higher level of implied equilibrium. Some might find an endless regulatory game of whack-a-mole to be entertaining.
Hahaha. Love the visual.  But again, the process of generating endless rules which are actually impossible to follow and end up constraining unintended persons in unintended ways, strangling the creativity of innovation and bloating the bureaucracy, increasing taxation and decreasing economic efficiency, promoting corruption and making a mockery of the cohesive ideologies of society will ultimately be more destabilizing that a few financial failures of whatever size a transparent market would tolerate forming.
You are simultaneously reinforcing my upthread point[1] about collectivism's unintended (even obfuscated) side-effects, but also you are misrepresenting my upthread point that the transparency should come from instead of a central bank regulating leverage, employing a decentralized (in theory "no one controls it") public ledger crypto-currency with free market demand for transparency. Thus, the free markets will anneal the regulation implicitly by the movement of capital from overly risky entities. Of course I agree with you that transparency won't work if we expect a collectivized central bank to be transparent. The regulated always sleep in bed together with the regulators. But a free market (i.e. high entropy) can't be so gamed. A free market crypto-currency can be transparent for reserve ratios (even with individual transaction anonymity). Do you need me to explain how? You can do fully collateralized futures. They are certainly less useful, and don't even reduce systemic risk relative to a market-based system of bonding with re-insurance guarantees, so I don't think many would find the case for their requirement to be compelling. Since I have a horse in the race, I would be de-motivated to bolster the case.
That was my upthread point against Denninger's "one dollar for one dollar" proposal. Non-leveraged futures don't cover all the possible ways that markets need to optimize strategies for optimal market efficiencies. They reduce degrees-of-freedom, i.e. they reduce entropy! Hedging reduces risk, and depends on leverage in practice, but could also be done fully-collateralized. I suppose that detractors of such applications of leverage consider that reducing the profits of rentiers is reward in itself. I don't, but I do think that socializing the downside of risk is a form of corruption and demonstrates the subversion of law.
As you may be implying, the ethical argument is ambiguous (analogous to my upthread point[1] how collectivist Wars on Drugs, Teenage Pregnancy, Women's Lib, Human Trafficking have unintended systemic collapse consequences). Rather the precise analytical reason Denninger's non-leverage proposal is insane, is because it reduces the entropy of the system.  | [1] | I am not motivated to stop human trafficking and teenage pregnancy with a global government, because for one reason those are economic activities else they wouldn't exist. They aren't being subsidized by government (and to the extent they are, then reducing government will reduce them which is what you want). When the government destroys what is economic there are kinds of unexpected impacts which are also very harmful to individuals. I provided a detailed post upthread about some of those adverse impacts. I just don't understand why you favor these actions? You say you are a thinking and judging man, so by what evidence? I think if you dig into it, you will end up being converted just as you were on the Global Warming lies. |
It is important to understand that the deflationary limit of debt-based monetary systems is essentially zero - unlike, for example, a commodity system such as gold or bitcoin, where no matter what happens to prices, there is at least a semi-stable money supply, in a debt-based system, defaults destroy the money supply. Right now we are seeing vast quantities of money rush into inflating asset bubbles. A cascade of defaults when those bubbles pop could destroy the bulk of the global notional money supply. Even if central banks were to make up such losses by re-inflation, the sheer dislocative stress of the cycle would insure dramatic social instability which those banks are unlikely to survive, as constituted today.
In this paragraph you have failed to identify the generative essence of the problem, although you alluded to it near the top of your post as I pointed out above. The reason for systemic risk of 0 is the low entropy of central banking, not the fact that there is debt and leverage. Commodity money is higher entropy not because it is tangible, but because the reserves are not regulated by a single entity, thus it is much higher entropy. I think that "levered" debt-based money supplies are a very bad idea, in part because they increase the magnitude of collapses, and in part because they are used to enslave the vulnerable majority.
Incorrect! After all the astute writing you did earlier, then you destroy it by conflating leverage debt with low entropy regulation. Leverage debt is essential to maximizing the efficiency in the economy which provides the prosperity for the majority. Please admit your mistake so we can reach consensus. I think they are a very new thing, at this scale, not yet 50 years old, and their collapse will serve a much-needed didactic purpose (very soon):
Nonsense! Leveraged futures contracts have existed for all the history of mankind in other forms. The new thing is ubiquity of central banking. Which we didn't have before! Even in the 1800s, the USA did not have a central bank!
Edit: Armstrong also offered another argument on this: http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/04/12/what-is-the-money-are-future-contracts-immoral/ |
|
|
|
An “[𝚘]ne-world reserve currency” (iamback) already exists. It does not appear to be an instrument of enslavement.
Incorrect. Comprehend the opening post of the thread before you write. The dollar does enslave the rest of the world. Are you not aware for example that QE1-3 enslaved the world in a massive short-dollar carry trade? The dollar is a global reserve currency, but it does not have all the salient characteristics of the "one-world reserve currency" that I enumerated in the opening post. Specifically the dollar lacks: 1. All countries believing they are playing a cooperative role in managing that reserve currency through representation on some international board, e.g. WorldBank. And thus not resisting the oppression of the USA (instead they will applaud with smiles their collectivized enslavement). 2. All countries' national currencies freely floating against the reserve currency. Because again they resist the oppression of the USA, e.g. the Yuan doesn't freely float. |
|
|
|
OROBTC, the site I launched today has nothing to do with the things we are discussing, it has no use to you (you are already married correct?), and the last thing I need (at this early juncture) is haters DDoS attacking my harmless site because they resent my views here. The only benefit for you would be to get a sample of my capabilities, but it isn't worth the risk to me to share it publicly here now. The source code of what I launched today is 250 kB, i.e. roughly 5000 lines of JavaScript, PHP, MySQL, HTML, and Apache code. That is decent sized project for one man to code as a starting point. It is a rehash of a project I had coded in 2010 and shutdown, but I did go over every line of code with a fine tooth comb and rewrote about half the code (all in about a 160 man-hours of actual coding time, I was too sick or wasting time writing in forums with the remainder of that 2 month period). I also wrote a several 1000s of lines of code on other projects in 2014 and early 2015, some of which was some crypto-currency code and the other is an unreleased Android app. If I ever release work relevant to our discussions here, it will be announced anonymously. You won't know it is me, unless you happen to deduce it based on certain features or my writing style. Armstrong is emphatic on one idea that I have taken to heart. Instead of worrying about "what should be", more personal efforts (preparation, education) should be devoted instead to "what actually is". I have taken to evangelizing less and trying harder to actually SEE and understand what is going on. And then acting accordingly.
I am emphatic on that. Not Armstrong. That is my point. |
|
|
|
|
I guarantee you it will be that bad before 2024, probably circa 2019.
It is going to be very very horrific the coming collapse. See the Economic Devastation thread in this Economics forum. Also the Madmax thread in the Politics & Society forum.
We will soon know. I expect by 2017 or latest 2018, you all will be scared shit and starting to wake up to the reality.
|
|
|
|
I don't imagine it as inevitable as people may think. After all for global currency there need to be first mutual agreement of all nations. And that is not gonna happen, people are just to diverse and have different opinion on this. They would rather fight to promote their own currency as global and 'the one' instead of just accepting someone's else project.
As I wrote in prior post, China is trying with the AIIB. And the USA is fighting. After coming global war and economic Madmax debt implosion, then the nations will beg for the compromise and cooperation. The powers-that-be have planned this out well. They need massive suffering to get the world to agree. And they are poised to deliver this massive suffering. ETA 2018. 2016 will get the ball rolling with Europe and Japan going over the cliff. USA will follow end of 2017. |
|
|
|
CoinCube, I haven't had much time to think deeply. My reason to subvert the oversight of government with technology is because without I note power corrupts absolutely and there is no feedback loop that can limit collectivism. The masses don't wake up and change the direction (remember the Petri dish from Understanding Everything Fundamentally which you linked from the opening post of this thread). Whereas, the free market does limit anarchy such that it doesn't have such devolved, unmitigated disasters. Anarchy can result in egregious individual losses, but it doesn't have the systemic risk of collectivism. That is my simplest way of proving to you that I am correct. Does that advance our understanding of our differences? If you understand what I wrote to be factually correct, then why be repulsed by those egregious individual harm that can come from anarchy? Collectivism also wields egregious individual harm but worse in the form of widespread systemic collapse. How did we diverge? I agree there will be a plurality of top-down organizations within anarchy (not just one big collective that swallows everything). But the difference is that the free market is voluntary and competitive and thus the plurality of top-down controllers will never devolve into a single-minded, top-down, systemic catastrophe. Well there is one exception I can think of where anarchy devolves to systemic collapse. Let's say we know an asteroid is heading for earth, yet no top-down actor in the anarchy has the incentive to act. Then we might need an involuntary collective to act and destroy the asteroid before it impacts the earth. But that is hardly a great argument for keeping collectives around perennially. Can you think of any other examples that are more compelling in your side? I am not motivated to stop human trafficking and teenage pregnancy with a global government, because for one reason those are economic activities else they wouldn't exist. They aren't being subsidized by government (and to the extent they are, then reducing government will reduce them which is what you want). When the government destroys what is economic there are kinds of unexpected impacts which are also very harmful to individuals. I provided a detailed post upthread about some of those adverse impacts. I just don't understand why you favor these actions? You say you are a thinking and judging man, so by what evidence? I think if you dig into it, you will end up being converted just as you were on the Global Warming lies. You asked earlier why I encouraged I3552 to spell out his ideas. I did so because I continue to look for a solution that would permit gradual decline rather than collapse. If he returns with further refinements to his idea I will hear him out as I will with anyone who genuinely believes they can contribute to a solution.
There can not be gradual decline. It never works that way when such beyond extreme imbalances have been accumulated as we have now in the world. We only have an option to adapt rapidly which could mitigate some of the collapse. But the masses can not adapt unless they are given some economic reason to, i.e. a pathway from the Petri dish with more food. A crypto-currency could be such an enticingly profitable pathway perhaps (to some extent). But why get so enamored with I3552's proposal for a currency based on the hodler's reputation value (anonymous with pseudonyms or not, doesn't matter due to Dunbar limit scaling) when we know precisely the problem now is that corruption is peaking, and it can't be just the leaders are corrupt, the people must be corrupt too otherwise they would have kicked the leaders out a long time ago. His proposal would thus just be more of the same. You see the basic fallacy is that organisms in the Petri dish are self-interested thus implicitly want to kill the host. They are gamed by reputation now, and will continue to be. And you too. Emotionally ("repulsed") you would need to empower a global government to go trample on other cultures because it personally bothers you that anyone (that you don't know and will never meet) would do teenage pregnancy and trade involving humans (a.k.a. human trafficking). |
|
|
|
Price discovery, hedging, maximization of fit, etc over events that have fractal or non-linear change requires the higher order model of Black-Scholes.
Some insight: http://blog.mpettis.com/2015/02/when-do-we-decide-that-europe-must-restructure-much-of-its-debt/#comment-121159
Um.. I did not understand at all what's it about? Armstrong is saying leverage is necessary. Denninger is saying we could have 100% backed financial system. I agree with Armstrong, but I disagree that a central bank can regulate leverage. The free market must do it, and by providing transparency of reserve ratios for a decentralized crypto-currency banking system, i.e. it will all be on the public ledger. How is my help needed? Did not delve on the topic but intuitively markets should do what they want incl leverage and CB can only destroy it by interfering. Principle is that in all deals of 2 parties, if one gains in the expense of the other, the other should be the sole sufferer. If leverage was too great to wipe out the collateral (or all assets if they were pledged), the winner should fail to receive gains in excess of what the loser is able to pay. I can't see how this is not enough of a principle for all deals, including those involving leverage. The point is not individual risk but impacts of systemic risk. Ah I was just asking for help to explain what I was trying to explain in detail in my posts which I provided you a linked to. I am unable to assess systemic risk, and opposed that anything should be forbidden or regulated based on the notion that someone thinks to be able to do it. I still don't know where my help is needed and actually would prefer to concentrate on my work rather than talk about a topic where I am not competent yet have strong principles  My point was same. That only the free market can regulate it. And I said we need transparency of reserve ratios, not a CB. |
|
|
|
Wekkel, sorry you didn't understand my post (what is the point of repeating what I already wrote?). I ask aminorex to try to explain it, if he agrees with me. You are suffering from similar myopia as Denninger. Price discovery, hedging, maximization of fit, etc over events that have fractal or non-linear change requires the higher order model of Black-Scholes. Sorry CoinCube, I am not going to be able to teach all the people. I am going to have go introverted and just do what I think will help me and others who have similar views and needs as I do. |
|
|
|
wavefronts interference. The business cycle is not the same wave as the international crisis cycle. This is why you would need computer to search all of fractal patterns and pull out the cycles from the interference.
Could you say the business cycle wave and the "international crisis cycle" wave however you may define them may be interconnected? The A.I. computer has apparently figured that out and it is very complex and it is isn't only the interference of just two cycles. Essentially the computer could map all the possibilities and then determine which complex relationship holds true for all dates for different cyclical events. It isn't really A.I. rather exhaustive search. It might be A.I. in a sense if the computer is altering the structure of what it is searching for based on entropy of its input data set. But as I pointed in my essay, it isn't A.I. in the sense that it is not interacting with the unbounded (in time) entropy of the evolutionary environment: http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html#Algorithm_!=_Entropy |
|
|
|
|
wavefronts interference. The business cycle is not the same wave as the international crisis cycle. This is why you would need computer to search all of fractal patterns and pull out the cycles from the interference.
|
|
|
|
|
INTJs seem to prefer what they can enumerate and apply with forethought. And they are skeptical of any claim without instances of proof.
So if we claim that competitive anarchy is better, yet anarchy never existed, they may fail to see how we are any less deluded than they are.
If we argue that all instances of involuntary collectivism have eventually devolved to a horrible end game, they can counter that no instances of anarchy have prevented it. I can counter that individual empowerment (a.k.a. frontiers) is what has mitigated unrestrained coercion of collectivism and prevented the extreme event of extinction (cancer killing the host). They can counter that I have no proof of that.
We on the Perception side are capable of visualizing that a conceptual paradigm has certain impacts without needing to prove it with equations and precise data. They don't trust this. It unconvincing to them.
Would that be accurate CoinCube?
CoinCube is probably correct that we will be unable to mitigate all the impacts of the coming collapse. And we will argue that our efforts have provided some relief and that we should aim to attain more individual empowerment against the coercion of the collective. CoinCube will probably continue to doubt whether the free market can always provide justice and continue to think it will have some downsides which could go to extremes if we were to eliminate the State entirely. And we counter that he can't prove that either.
I say we all go accomplish and do what we want. And each other make our choices. And let the chips fall where they may.
Life is complex.
(I understand CoinCube's point but I can't possibly bring myself to support large government. Small, local governments I can tolerate, as long as I can walk away when they start devolving).
|
|
|
|
Can anyone explain why even though the dates in the following chart do not align on a 8.6 year cycle, that Armstrong is not deviating from the scientific method?  P.S. This is a test. I can explain it. Hint, pay careful attention to what the dates represent and what the 8.6 cycle represents and then read his other post and this one. |
|
|
|
This is very relevant to the Dark Enlightenment: |
|
|
|
I propose letting this thread return to the the topic of Economic Devastation
We never left the main topic. The "utilitarian" Marxism system (i.e. encompassing its intransigent ideologically intoxicated support of the people) is retarding the people's the adaptation to the Knowledge Age, by bribing and intoxicating them with ideology, debt, welfare, etc.. Cryptocurrency is the best educational tool in this regard that has ever existed. It drives people to think about the complexities of the state, fiat currency, and centralized control. Perhaps given enough time tools such as this will allow us to reach critical mass? Our chances on that front do not appear all that favorable.
I can't even change your mind on the real coercion being mass murder at the end game, and you still want a War on Human Trafficking and a War on Teenage Pregnancy. Reprogramming the minds of Marxist masses has never been accomplished and never will be. All we can do is make tools which we individuals can use to protect ourselves against the Marxist masses. Those who want to save themselves will educate themselves on how to use these tools. Our odds of succeeding in protecting ourselves individually are probably quite high. We will employ many different tools, strategies and circumstances, i.e. a free market of autonomous actors. You see your mind is still stuck in Marxism. You are always thinking about the plight of the entire society, as if any humans really have any control over that whatsoever. Sorry to tell you, nature is on auto-pilot. You'd better focus on yourself. Make sure you read James A. Donald's comments I linked in the prior post. He explains why this desire to sacrifice yourself (or even your dog) for people far away that you will never meet, is why you end up supporting mass murder just as the German citizens enthusiastically supporting Hitler. It is really a mental disease. Sorry. I know you have a good heart and intentions, but your rationality has fallen into an irrational emotional ideology. http://accelus.thomsonreuters.com/special-report/money-laundering-and-corruption-meeting-new-responsibilitiesGround-breaking changes are being made by the United States where prosecutors are getting results with new tactics to crack down on banks that fail to fight money laundering. The process is simple — getting the suspects in a wide range of criminal cases to help them follow the money back to their bankers. In another new development, prosecutors are using PayPal and virtual currencies to fight human trafficking as they mine for clues as to the identity and source of funds of those who oversee and control the prostitutes.
|
|
|
|
The alternative is the State will waterfall collapse into the abyss killing fields. So you better pray the free market succeeds. Otherwise your worst fears will come to roost. You think the State will slowly decline? Hell no. The end game is always a waterfall collapse into the abyss. Only free market frontiers provide for the adaptation. Without it, welcome to Dark Age. (I am being dramatic because we face something very difficult and it will require some really Herculean innovation to get us through this) You are just coming at it from an emotional attachment to collective order as being good enough. Collective order is a mass murder paradigm (at the cyclical end game). We've got a few years perhaps until 2018 or 2019. Maybe we still have enough time (but it is getting into late innings). Individually sovereign private assets (gold, Bitcoin, altcoins) won't kick into highest gear until after 2017.95 with the peak in the influx into the dollar and USA assets (that is 2015.75 + 8.6/4). They should bottom soon @ ≈2015.75. Looks like Hillary Clinton will be POTUS during this descent into war which the War Cycle predicts to begin in 2017. By 2018 we are going to be descending into hell. War, USA economic collapse, and potential pandemic. In short, the State can't help you. Only we can. An alternative viewpoint is that Asia will bottom in 2020 and rise while the West falls over the cliff from 2020 to 2024. But maybe that is because the free market will succeed. Maybe we are destined to succeed. Former (Jewish?) IRS Commissioner and the man who wrote much of the tax code law, said to (Jew) Aaron Russo (producer of Bette Midler, The Rose, Trading Places, etc) in Ashkenazi Jewish Yiddish language, " nothing will help you". Skip to the 37 min point in the linked video. ... Nick Rockefeller told Aaron Russo what the goal is. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
