Edit: I think one of CoinCube's points is that anonymity is incompatible with the world moving towards global surveillance as part of the lurch towards transparency as collectivism (carrying along with it the usurious monetary system) tries to become more righteous, especially with Asia (Singapore model) leading the way.
I believe CoinCube may be thinking that if crypto-currency enables untraceable cash, then the governments will join together to ban it.
That accurately describes my views. Transparency will be painful. Everybody Knows |
|
|
|
Cryptocurrency is not a real store of value, though. It is basically at the same level as fiat on Exter's pyramid. Wealth is derived from resources and labor. Cryptocurrency will always be the bad money driving out good money compared to an actual resource/commodity based currency whether it's gold, silver, oil, or some other substance. The problem that it's very difficult to remove counterparty risk on things like uranium and oil always switch roles back to metals such as gold and silver instead.
...
The difference is that crypto currency has the potential to someday climb beyond fiat beyond gold even on Exter's pyramid. Gold can essentially be thought of as an eternal partially anonymous POW blockchain. It is mined and mining requires work limiting its supply and allowing it to be used as a store of value. Gold does have counterparty risk. The counterparty is society. The purchaser of gold takes the risk that the gold network (the network of individuals in society willing to buy and own gold) will continue to exist. Governments play a role here in that they have the power through their actions to strengthen or weaken this network but they lack the ability to destroy it entirely. The gold network has existed for thousands of years it has also survived multiple government attempts to eliminate it so the counterparty risk is lower than with anything else that exists. To displace gold cryptocurrency would need to have a counterparty risk that was lower than gold. This would require A) Demonstration of enternal nature currency would need to hold its value over several generations B) Demonstration of resilience cryptocurrency network it would need to show its ability to survive outlast and not be broken or destroyed by hostile government action. The jury is still out on whether bitcoin can meet these very high hurdles. However, even if bitcoin fails it seems almost inevitable that something will come along someday that can meet them. What interest me is the role bitcoin plays in improving the signalling mechanism of money. sidhujag has referred to a near perfect money from the framework of Nash's asymptotically ideal money.
At first glance bitcoin does not appear to be ideal money at all. It's utterly fixed quantity of 21 million creates a permanent incentive against growth. In a world with bitcoin as currency people would under-invest as it becomes very profitable to just to hold money. Bitcoin as money introduces a vector opposing growth.
Bitcoin, however, does not exist in a vacuum. It coexists alongside a usury based fiat system. This financed based system is built upon very different foundations. Usury introduces a vector for eternal exponential growth. Eternal exponential growth is impossible in a finite world so under our current system we must progressively lie to ourselves to maintain the illusion of exponential growth.
In mathematics if one wishes to zero out a vector field you introduce a vector pointing in the opposite direction. We may be able to achieve asymptotically ideal money not via any single currency breakthrough but by the existence of competing currencies founded upon differing fundamental assumptions different vectors.
If we allow free flow of capital between these currencies capital can flow between them matching overall growth signaling with underlying reality. Perhaps ideal money will not be a single currency but the result of a dynamic competition between them.
I've thought a bit about this. If bitcoin was used as the default currency you can pay taxes in then banks would refuse to lend.. ie people with bitcoin would then become banks. You wouldn't want to loan your coins out? There will always be peaks and troughs in the market, so maybe during a downturn people loan coins for cheap (lower interest rates) while on uptrends the demand for loans picks up but at higher interest rates based on that demand. In general people want to HODL as they expect higher prices but there will still be lending available because people want to assure income through interest rates as lenders and borrowers want to always make more coin. Lenders know they will get their coins back so they will always lend with interest unless the borrower defaults (which is risk placed in the calculation of the interest rate to the borrower). (This is my current thinking feedback is welcome) Imagine for a moment coexisting large and liquid bitcoin and fiat markets in equilibrium. Given the option borrowers will prefer loans is a currency they have a reasonable expectation of repaying. Along comes a major technological innovation that promises dramatic innovation and profits. Innovators seeking to capture this new market will need capital. Some will invest their fiat others will take out fiat loans and some will sell bitcoin. Overall the demand for bitcoin will decline relative to the demand for fiat. The signal transmitted through the cumulative system of monetary transmission (fiat and bitcoin) will be one of increased growth. Capital shifting from bitcoin to fiat increases the overall growth vector matching capital appropriately to opportunity. Now imagine the opposite scenario of limited growth exhaustion of opportunities and economic consolidation. Fiat requires perpetual debasement which will continue with or without growth so individuals will sell productive assets who's future prospects require growth, take out fiat debts to by bitcoin (anticipating debasement without growth), and exchange fiat for bitcoin. The signal transmitted through the cumulative system of monetary transmission (fiat and bitcoin) will be one of reduced growth. Bitcoin is ultimately a zero growth vector. Capital shifts away from fiat decreasing the intensity of the growth vector. In this way individual actors shifting back and forth between liquid markets can alter the behavioral vector introduced by money so that it matches underlying reality. What is the difference between investing with bitcoin vs investing with fiat? One is closer to ideal money than the other and thus will win. They may work in harmony up to a tipping point where the preferred market instrument will take over due to higher transfer utility. You seem stuck in thinking that people cannot invest or will not invest with bitcoins. If the breakthrough is significant people will want bigger gains than what they would have been getting with btc.. if not then the breakthrough isn't big enough to justify large capital investments. Just as there is demand to hold coins over investing there is also likewise demand to lend bitcoins to high quality borrowers.
This brings us to the question of what is ideal money? Ideal money is not something that just holds its value over time. Money is ultimately a signalling system. Like the nervous system it's function is to coordinate independent actors directing their activity appropriately across the fitness landscape of the world and the economy. Bitcoin could certainly be an ideal money but it would be ideal money for a very specific society. Bitcoin would be ideal money for a society that was entirely or mostly static with limited or no technological progress and a stable population. In such an environment an entirely fixed supply of money would be ideal. It would allow stable transmission of value facilitating division of labor and coordination across the economy. If we imposed a system like bitcoin upon a society with growth potential people would still invest, but they would not invest appropriately in response to economic opportunities. They would under-invest because a fixed supply of money creates a strong incentive against risk. With an utterly fixed money supply you receive a percentage of future economic growth simply by doing nothing. Only the most promising growth opportunities would receive investment and those with more marginal returns would be ignored. A bitcoin monetary system thus creates a strong vector against growth or in bitcoin lingo a HODL mentality. Similarly a currency build upon the expectation of eternal exponential growth also runs into difficulties. Economic growth is unpredictable as it requires knowledge formation. Nothing grows exponentially forever there will always be periods of consolidation with limited or even no growth. Fiat does not allow for such periods as the entire system starts to collapse in a prolonged zero growth environment. This collapse is why society introduces artificial growth via government spending, central bank purchases of bonds, wealth redistribution and guaranteed incomes. All of these interventions are inefficient and inhibit growth. It is impossible for any monetary system that requires either exponential growth (fiat) or is optimal in zero growth environment (bitcoin) to appropriately coordinate economic actors to a dynamically changing economy. To be ideal money a system must be adaptable across all future economic landscapes facilitating growth or inhibiting it in response to underlying economic opportunities. It may be possible to approximate ideal money with some form of dynamic algorithm that changes in response to economic activity and population size but I am skeptical for this represents an attempt at top-down central planning coordinating the money supply via growth measurements or economic models. If we allow for dynamic competition between multiple currencies, however, we eliminate the need for accurate top-down omniscience. As long as the cost of converting from one currency to another is low future money does need to be a single uniform system. With a multitude of currencies to choose from (each based on differing fundamentals) actors would be able to move between currency systems depending on their economic needs and opportunities. This movement would alter the fundamental value of these currency options. The aggregate growth vector would become dynamically adaptable to all scenarios and thus appropriately coordinate actors across the broader economy (fitness landscape). |
|
|
|
What interest me is the role bitcoin plays in improving the signalling mechanism of money. sidhujag has referred to a near perfect money from the framework of Nash's asymptotically ideal money.
At first glance bitcoin does not appear to be ideal money at all. It's utterly fixed quantity of 21 million creates a permanent incentive against growth. In a world with bitcoin as currency people would under-invest as it becomes very profitable to just to hold money. Bitcoin as money introduces a vector opposing growth.
Bitcoin, however, does not exist in a vacuum. It coexists alongside a usury based fiat system. This financed based system is built upon very different foundations. Usury introduces a vector for eternal exponential growth. Eternal exponential growth is impossible in a finite world so under our current system we must progressively lie to ourselves to maintain the illusion of exponential growth.
In mathematics if one wishes to zero out a vector field you introduce a vector pointing in the opposite direction. We may be able to achieve asymptotically ideal money not via any single currency breakthrough but by the existence of competing currencies founded upon differing fundamental assumptions different vectors.
If we allow free flow of capital between these currencies capital can flow between them matching overall growth signaling with underlying reality. Perhaps ideal money will not be a single currency but the result of a dynamic competition between them.
I've thought a bit about this. If bitcoin was used as the default currency you can pay taxes in then banks would refuse to lend.. ie people with bitcoin would then become banks. You wouldn't want to loan your coins out? There will always be peaks and troughs in the market, so maybe during a downturn people loan coins for cheap (lower interest rates) while on uptrends the demand for loans picks up but at higher interest rates based on that demand. In general people want to HODL as they expect higher prices but there will still be lending available because people want to assure income through interest rates as lenders and borrowers want to always make more coin. Lenders know they will get their coins back so they will always lend with interest unless the borrower defaults (which is risk placed in the calculation of the interest rate to the borrower). (This is my current thinking feedback is welcome) Imagine for a moment coexisting large and liquid bitcoin and fiat markets in equilibrium. Given the option borrowers will prefer loans is a currency they have a reasonable expectation of repaying. Along comes a major technological innovation that promises dramatic innovation and profits. Innovators seeking to capture this new market will need capital. Some will invest their fiat others will take out fiat loans and some will sell bitcoin. Overall the demand for bitcoin will decline relative to the demand for fiat. The signal transmitted through the cumulative system of monetary transmission (fiat and bitcoin) will be one of increased growth. Capital shifting from bitcoin to fiat increases the overall growth vector matching capital appropriately to opportunity. Now imagine the opposite scenario of limited growth exhaustion of opportunities and economic consolidation. Fiat requires perpetual debasement which will continue with or without growth so individuals will sell productive assets who's future prospects require growth, take out fiat debts to by bitcoin (anticipating debasement without growth), and exchange fiat for bitcoin. The signal transmitted through the cumulative system of monetary transmission (fiat and bitcoin) will be one of reduced growth. Bitcoin is ultimately a zero growth vector. Capital shifts away from fiat decreasing the intensity of the growth vector. In this way individual actors shifting back and forth between liquid markets can alter the behavioral vector introduced by money so that it matches underlying reality. |
|
|
|
I believe the heart of the matter is very simply the following: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. Indeed this is why we call it faith. |
|
|
|
I'm not quite sure what good and bad or right or wrong have to do with anything and why I can't apply my worldview to my reality without a definition of either?
As you said Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, 'Try all things, hold fast by that which is good'
You have to define what is good before you can hold fast by it. Edit: On a second look perhaps the quoted author is merely throwing that sentence out there as commentary? Maybe it is this that is the heart of the matter. it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him, it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science.
Yet as we see in The Limits of Science reason cannot ever answer all questions. Faith without reason is impossible to avoid. The apriori cannot be escaped. |
|
|
|
Every time I comment on this thread the first person to respond to me thinks that I'm talking about Christianity and the god that they recognize, and it pisses me off. I'm not talking about Christianity, Islam, or fucking Hinduism. I'm talking about the idea of some sort of higher power/being or "god", and the absolute fact that you cannot say for certain as you proclaim there is a god or there is no god. Please, please, please read this. Stop right now and take away all of your preconceptions about me, religion and agnosticism. Please just read this devoid of emotion and tell me if it doesn't make sense. Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, 'Try all things, hold fast by that which is good'; it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him, it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic position, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.
The results of the working out of the agnostic principle will vary according to individual knowledge and capacity, and according to the general condition of science. That which is unproved today may be proved, by the help of new discoveries, tomorrow. The only negative fixed points will be those negations which flow from the demonstrable limitation of our faculties. And the only obligation accepted is to have the mind always open to conviction.
That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism.”
― Thomas Henry Huxley
My beliefs are solely based off the logic that is explained in this quote. Please don't call yourself an atheist (as I'm assuming you do) and instead take to the agnostic position, as any logical person would have to do. It's a beautiful philosophy to live by: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic position, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him. GMpoison your approach is a logical one. However, you cannot escape the apriori. In matters of the intellect we can follow our reason as far as it will take us without regard to any other consideration but reason can never answer all questions. There will always be a need to make apriori assumptions. Even the refusal to make a choice is a choice and all choices have consequences and shape your interaction with the world. A helpful essay that illustrates the limitation of reasons and science is: The Limits of ScienceIn your example above you do not define what good is and consequentially what constitutes evil. Without a definition you have no way of actually applying your worldview to reality. For example one theist view of evil is the following. http://www.shamash.org/lists/scj-faq/HTML/faq/12-20.htmlAll the evil in the world is either:
1) Made by man and permitted by God because the evil is not worse than reducing all of humankind to mindless automata.
2) An effect of nature that God allowed because the alternative would be to prove His existence by intervention, thereby eliminating free will.
3) Something that only seems to be evil from our limited perspective, but wouldn't be judged evil if we have all the facts. These often become clear with sufficient hindsight, although they often do not, as well.
An common atheist perspective is that there is no such such thing as good or evil there is only "i like" and "i don't like" and even that can be reduced to simple biological imperatives which in turn are nothing more then chemical reactions in the brain without underlying meaning or significance. These views when applied to life will take one to very different conclusion regarding what is moral, what is acceptable behavior, and how one should structure ones life. These conclusion in turn have consequences. I discussed some of these consequences in the Health and Religion thread. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin's value is based entirely on transaction flow and artificial scarcity of block size. For gold or silver there's an actual cost of production price floor. Oil makes up a large part of that floor, but even if you invent free energy, you're still constrained by the fact that you're in a closed ecosystem with limited supply and most of what can be mined has already happened anyway, and most things on the periodic table have some type of inelastic demand in the first place.
What interest me is the role bitcoin plays in improving the signalling mechanism of money. sidhujag has referred to a near perfect money from the framework of Nash's asymptotically ideal money. At first glance bitcoin does not appear to be ideal money at all. It's utterly fixed quantity of 21 million creates a permanent incentive against growth. In a world with bitcoin as currency people would under-invest as it becomes very profitable to just to hold money. Bitcoin as money introduces a vector opposing growth. Bitcoin, however, does not exist in a vacuum. It coexists alongside a usury based fiat system. This financed based system is built upon very different foundations. Usury introduces a vector for eternal exponential growth. Eternal exponential growth is impossible in a finite world so under our current system we must progressively lie to ourselves to maintain the illusion of exponential growth. In mathematics if one wishes to zero out a vector field you introduce a vector pointing in the opposite direction. We may be able to achieve asymptotically ideal money not via any single currency breakthrough but by the existence of competing currencies founded upon differing fundamental assumptions different vectors. If we allow free flow of capital between these currencies capital can flow between them matching overall growth signaling with underlying reality. Perhaps ideal money will not be a single currency but the result of a dynamic competition between them. |
|
|
|
iamnotback your post above wanders from topic to topic touching many areas where I profoundly disagree with you. I lack the time to engage in a prolonged debate across multiple different subjects so I will respond once highlighting the flaws in your reasoning and then give you the final reply on the matter. Let's start with the few areas where we agree. • The proper role of top-down order in a society is to coordinate cooperative outcomes that require coordination, such as for example contracts entered into willingly by adults.
• I pray we can do better than these leftist delusions (which of course are always entirely co-opted by elite oligarchy) and actually move forward to a well-functioning, decentralized society.
• The contract between the child and parent is not a contract entered into by any will of the child. The child is subject to the parent's will until the child is old enough to make it on its own.
Now let's move on to our disagreements. • How is the usurious system placing any limits on growth of the Knowledge Age? Sorry I don't see it.
• You refuse to allow nature to fail, thus you are proposing low entropy directions.
• You can't top-down muck with (trample on) nature and not get Frankenstein outcomes. Because you are lowering the entropy.
• You are proposing to reward and promote sluts. You are promoting immorality.
You used to understand how usury limits the growth of the knowledge. The quote below is from your essay The Rise of Knowledge.
“Thus if knowledge production was increasingly not financeable, then we would expect to see top-down suppression of knowledge production by vested financing interests and widespread theft by those vested interests trying to maintain levels of net worth they would not have in an economy with more knowledge production.
I assert that is what we see today. To correctly argue that politics is the cause of allowing excessive indebtedness and its resultant misallocation of resources (which is a loss of knowledge), is as irrelevant as arguing whether the chicken or the egg is first. It is sufficient that there exists the destruction and suppression of knowledge coincident with the macro-economic failure of over indebtedness, to conclude the financing and knowledge production do not coexist. Because we know from the “Economy of Knowledge” section, that knowledge production must increase as a share of GDP for there to be increasingly prosperity.”You later argue that the suppression of knowledge will end because the "entropic force" necessitates a decline in usury over time. This argument is akin to pointing out that a boulder perched atop a mountain is destined to fall to the valley floor below. The statement is true but not necessarily helpful. Elsewhere you have posited that a vast dark economy will grow and then destroy the existing social order via anonymous economic warfare. This appears to be the heart of your bifurcation hypothesis. The war of anonymity against the state is your mechanism for how the rock falls and I simply don't think this is how things will play out. Indeed the exact opposite appears to be the case. We are on the verge of an era of utter transparency. This transparency will have major downsides but ultimately it will yield benefits that exceed the costs. The rock will fall via a different path. It is transparency that will ultimately force us to behave better for our sins will become visible to all. You expanded my positions out of context above to support your philosophical slippery slope argument. You repeatedly argue that every top-down intervention must spiral into an out of control Frankenstein's monster "because you lower the entropy". This argument is simply untrue. Most top-down responses occur because they are necessary to keep individuals from defecting and destroying the rights of their fellows. Top-down control thus maximizes entropy and can only be relaxed when we learn ways to improve our behavior. Without moral progress any disturbance from equilibrium including those introduced by decentralizing technology will just collapse back into the old order because the old order remains the optimal configuration. Enforcing the sanctity of contracts is one of the primary roles of the state. This allows cooperative outcomes that require coordination. When we bring life into the world both parents impose a their will on the unborn. The parents assume the responsibility to raise the child into adulthood to the best of their ability. The child assume the responsibility of life and all the pain and joys life entails. You take the position that a contract forced upon another deserves less scrutiny than a contract entered into willingly. Indeed the opposite is the case. A contract forced upon another deserves more scrutiny and when there is doubt it should always be interpenetrated in favor of the unwilling participant. It is true that making men pay for child support allows immoral women to take advantage of men. Yes this is a massive shift in power from times past when immoral men competed to take advantage of women. Tough cookies the individual who's interests supersedes that of both the mother and the father is that of the child. When people behave morally there is no need for top-down control. However, when they behave badly top-down control is unavoidable. • I have no responsibility to help the innocent. It is my choice whether I want to (and I very much may depending on my available resources). This diversity is necessary.
• There is no nirvana. Nature is what it is. We have to accept it.
Again and again and in various forms you repeat the argument that I refuse to allow failure. I do nothing of the sort. We have many responsibilities one of these is to help the innocent to the best of our ability. All that is necessary to preserve diversity is that we be given free choice to fulfill our responsibilities or reject them. Via our choices we succeed or fail. Freedom of choice and freedom to fail does not entail freedom from consequence. Nature is what it is. We must understand it and the limits it imposes but we do not have to accept it as sacrosanct. Promotion and worship of nature and "natural outcomes" ultimately limits both freedom and progress. Nature is amoral. Nature knows nothing of good and evil. In nature there is one rule—survival of the fittest. There is no right, only might. If a creature is weak, kill it. Only human beings could have moral rules such as, "If it is weak, protect it." Only human beings can feel themselves ethically obligated to strangers.
...
Nature allows you to act naturally, i.e., do only what you want you to do, without moral restraints; God does not. Nature lets you act naturally - and it is as natural to kill, rape, and enslave as it is to love.
...
One of the vital elements in the ethical monotheist revolution was its repudiation of nature as god. The evolution of civilization and morality have depended in large part on desanctifying nature.
...
Civilizations that equated gods with nature—a characteristic of all primitive societies—or that worshipped nature did not evolve.
...
Words cannot convey the magnitude of the change wrought by the Bible's introduction into the world of a God who rules the universe morally.
|
|
|
|
...
I was writing about responsibility for the mistakes of others, such as paying the rent for mothers with 12 children from 12 different fathers (with the State welfare encouraging them to do that even more). I was thinking about Obamacare and whether we are all responsible for the healthcare of each other, thus encouraging people to make poor decisions about taking care of their health (eating habits, exercise habits, vices, etc). Collectivized healthcare by increasing demand also either drives costs up and/or imposes top-down aberrations such as rationing.
Please make it clear if you also think we are responsible for others in all cases such as the cases I was thinking about.
In short, the distinction appears to be responsibility TO others versus FOR others respectively.
...
The distinction is between responsibility and entitlement. We have a responsibility to help the less fortunate especially the innocent. The less fortunate, however, are not entitled to such aid. In your example above the 12 young children are in danger of starvation and homelessness and a grave injustice is present. The contract between child and parent has been violated multiple times leaving them without the resources needed to survive. Reproduction is a contract voluntary entered between parents and children. The role of the state is to enforce contracts when one party is in breach. A moral society will step in and rectify the situation if it is capable of doing so. The best solution is to track down the 12 different fathers and make them pay for their children garnishing their wages to substance levels if necessary. As I argued above the lesson society will learn next is transparency. Transparency makes it a simple matter to track down these fathers. Most of the R reproductive strategy you discussed is nothing other then a strategy of defection dumping the economic and social costs of childrearing on women and the state. The R strategy in its present form will mostly vanish. We see this already in various "Red Pill" forums with men forswearing marriage and children due to the high "cost". The state has every right to push back against defection. The R reproductive strategy will continue to exist but to the extent it does it will decouple from defection and abandonment. In your healthcare example the primary responsibility again needs to be pushed back on the individual. Since we appropriately value life and are thus unwilling to let people who make poor choices simply die people must be forced to save even when they do not want to. The best model I have seen is that of Singapore which requires all of its citizens to save 20% of their earnings in a personal (not collective) health savings account. Health expenses come out of this fund and later in life and if you are healthy and do not use the all money your children can inherit it. For individuals who take poor care of themselves (eating habits, exercise habits, vices, etc) there is nothing wrong with pushing up the required savings to approximate the expected cost. That still leaves us with extremes of fate. Horrible medical conditions that require massive medical expenses at a young age or children whose parents die in car crashes and have no immediate family. These individuals must petition the state and other individuals for aid. Society in turn has a responsibility to help these unfortunate souls to the degree it is able. However, the distinction should be made that such aid is not entitled but can and often will be gifted. Sometimes we cannot rectify the errors of others or we choose easy "solutions" that actually make the situation worse. When this happens we suffer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8AWFf7EAc4Thus what ever the cause of Leftism, I view it as a diseased religion that is on its deathbed as it culls itself because knowledge and technology are ready to move forward out of the Industrial usurious (high concentration of fixed capital) Age into a maximum division-of-labor (highly diversified annealing, low concentration of capital) Knowledge Age.
If the fundamental driver of leftism is usury then a decline in leftism is unlikely to proceed a decline in usury. To reiterate, my thesis is that the economy may be bifurcating: Yes, I disagree with the bifurcation part of your thesis. |
|
|
|
Thus what ever the cause of Leftism, I view it as a diseased religion that is on its deathbed as it culls itself because knowledge and technology are ready to move forward out of the Industrial usurious (high concentration of fixed capital) Age into a maximum division-of-labor (highly diversified annealing, low concentration of capital) Knowledge Age.
If the fundamental driver of leftism is usury then a decline in leftism is unlikely to proceed a decline in usury. The fact that maximum division-of-labor occurs under a different social structure does not mean that future will immediately occur. If you could travel back to 4000 B.C. and take over a small tribe you would probably find it impossible to create a democratic industrial revolution even if you brought all the needed technical knowledge with you. You might make transient changes but any changes to the fundamental structure of society you imposed would likely disappear as soon as you died. Weapon technology you introduced would probably stick around though. Something along these line is what Dyson may have been referring to in your quote above. *Technological progress does more harm than good unless accompanied by ethical progress. The free market by itself will not produce technologies access-friendly to the poor.
|
|
|
|
What is your logic?
I think we are only responsible for not injuring others or unnecessarily interfering with the free will of others.
Making us all responsible for the mistakes of others is a very low entropy result and does not improve diversity.
Giving us the freedom to be choose to be responsible for others on an individual case-by-case basis is high entropy and diverse.
... Even if entirely self-interested, we value humanity because our existence would be irrelevant and unsuccessful without humanity. Man is nothing without a society. The maximum division-of-labor dictates that our production and achievements can only increase (and be meaningful existing outside of our own perception) by being a member of a society. ... It means that suttee, the now rare but once widespread Hindu practice of burning widows with their husband's body, is wrong. It means the killing of a daughter or sister who lost her virginity prior to marriage, practiced to this day in parts of the Arab world, is immoral.
And their societies are languishing in extreme suffering because of their inability to comprehend how disrespecting their fellow humans is destroying themselves. They reaped what they sowed. We don't need a God to tell us that. We are responsible because the distinction between self and not-self is fundamentally arbitrary. It is true that responsibility cannot be collectively delegated. It is also true that employing force is to coerce desired behavior (especially behavior that does not infringe on the free will of another i.e. self-destructive behavior) is "low entropy". We voluntarily choose to accept responsibility. Otherwise we are not free. Progress requires people to make the correct choices with increasing frequency over time. For the discrete and separate self the rest of the world is fundamentally other. Individuals with such a worldview are rationally concerned not with maximum division-of-labor but instead on how much he or she can personally commandeer. Our society is languishing in extreme suffering because of our inability to comprehend how harming our fellow humans is ultimately harming ourselves. http://sacred-economics.com/read-online/The discrete and separate self, surveying a universe that is fundamentally Other, naturally treats the natural and human world as a pile of instrumental, accidental stuff. The rest of the world is fundamentally not-self. Why should we care about it, beyond our own foreseeable utility?
...
In nature, headlong growth and all-out competition are features of immature ecosystems, followed by complex interdependency, symbiosis, cooperation, and the cycling of resources. The next stage of human economy will parallel what we are beginning to understand about nature. It will call forth the gifts of each of us; it will emphasize cooperation over competition.
...
Within every institution of our civilization, no matter how ugly or corrupt, there is the germ of something beautiful: the same note at a higher octave.
Cycles of Contention | | Cycle #1 | Cycle #2 | Cycle #3 | Cycle #4 | Cycle #5 | Cycle #6 | | Mechanism of Control | Knowledge of Evil | Warlordism | Holy War | Usury | Universal Surveillance | Hedonism | | Rulers | The Strong | Despots | God Kings/Monarchs | Capitalists | Oligarchs (NWO) | Decentralized Government | | Life of the Ruled | "Nasty, Brutish, Short" | Slaves | Surfs | Debtors | Basic Income Recipients | Knowledge Workers | | Facilitated Advance | Knowledge of Good | Commerce | Rule of Law | Growth | Transparency | Ascesis |
that teaches us to treat others as ourselves even when dealing with strangers. Matthew 7:12 "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." Hillel the Elder "What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn." Abdullah ibn Amr Al-Ass "Whoever wishes to be delivered from the fire and enter the garden should die with faith in Allah and the Last Day and should treat the people as he wishes to be treated by them" We are slow learners. |
|
|
|
... Even if entirely self-interested, we value humanity because our existence would be irrelevant and unsuccessful without humanity. Man is nothing without a society. The maximum division-of-labor dictates that our production and achievements can only increase (and be meaningful existing outside of our own perception) by being a member of a society. ... It means that suttee, the now rare but once widespread Hindu practice of burning widows with their husband's body, is wrong. It means the killing of a daughter or sister who lost her virginity prior to marriage, practiced to this day in parts of the Arab world, is immoral.
And their societies are languishing in extreme suffering because of their inability to comprehend how disrespecting their fellow humans is destroying themselves. They reaped what they sowed. We don't need a God to tell us that. For the discrete and separate self the rest of the world is fundamentally other. Individuals with such a worldview are rationally concerned not with maximum division-of-labor but instead on how much he or she can personally commandeer. Our society is languishing in extreme suffering because of our inability to comprehend how harming our fellow humans is ultimately harming ourselves. http://sacred-economics.com/read-online/The discrete and separate self, surveying a universe that is fundamentally Other, naturally treats the natural and human world as a pile of instrumental, accidental stuff. The rest of the world is fundamentally not-self. Why should we care about it, beyond our own foreseeable utility?
...
In nature, headlong growth and all-out competition are features of immature ecosystems, followed by complex interdependency, symbiosis, cooperation, and the cycling of resources. The next stage of human economy will parallel what we are beginning to understand about nature. It will call forth the gifts of each of us; it will emphasize cooperation over competition.
...
Within every institution of our civilization, no matter how ugly or corrupt, there is the gem of something beautiful: the same note at a higher octave.
Cycles of Contention | | Cycle #1 | Cycle #2 | Cycle #3 | Cycle #4 | Cycle #5 | Cycle #6 | | Mechanism of Control | Knowledge of Evil | Warlordism | Holy War | Usury | Universal Surveillance | Hedonism | | Rulers | The Strong | Despots | God Kings/Monarchs | Capitalists | Oligarchs (NWO) | Decentralized Government | | Life of the Ruled | "Nasty, Brutish, Short" | Slaves | Surfs | Debtors | Basic Income Recipients | Knowledge Workers | | Facilitated Advance | Knowledge of Good | Commerce | Rule of Law | Growth | Transparency | Ascesis |
that teaches us to treat others as ourselves even when dealing with strangers. Matthew 7:12 "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." Hillel the Elder "What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn." Abdullah ibn Amr Al-Ass "Whoever wishes to be delivered from the fire and enter the garden should die with faith in Allah and the Last Day and should treat the people as he wishes to be treated by them" We are slow learners. |
|
|
|
Leftism or collectivism is the expected and necessary result of an underlying structural and moral problem. Its not even bad really its is just inevitable consequence.
My paternal grandmother had very bad experiences in Poland right after WWII (with the Red Cross there). Communists hassled her to no end, very bad. I have a mental rash that hits me when I ponder Communism and its fellow-travelers. And I had the chance myself to see Communism in action in E. Germany and Poland in 1984. Long as you're not spending my money to do so (your sentence I marked in red)... Communism was an evil ideology that killed millions I should clarify that I am not in any way defending it. I am also not defending collectivism in general (which is not necessarily communism) other then to say that usury makes it's rise inevitable. Here is a nice (but very long) article that highlights this point. The Economics of Usury http://sacred-economics.com/sacred-economics-chapter-6-the-economics-of-usury/Wealth Redistribution and Class War
Without wealth redistribution, social chaos is unavoidable in an interest-bearing, debt-based money system, especially when growth slows...
|
|
|
|
...
I think also xSplit is unwilling to accept a world in which the children suffer if their parents don't or can't provide well for them. He thinks we are all collectively responsible for all the others. Again this is a low entropy philosophy of collectivism. Those who want to adopt or help others are free to do so, but forcing collectivism on everyone is a low entropy MEGADEATH directed outcome. Basically he demands that nature not be allowed to have failure and thus he demands non-existence. This is the common trait of the leftist insanity. Singapore will disagree successfully for a while because they can leverage their good fortune (of billions of cheap labor resources in Asia, etc), but eventually their idealistic insanity (this concept that everything must be "fair") may run it's course (I am still not yet 100% decided if their subsidy programs are rational investments in their citizenry or collectivist top-down misdirection of the free market, my intuitive reaction is they are appropriate in the small/seedling stage but need to be phased out over time lest they become Coasian misincentives).
The leftist "idealistic" ideology insanity is so self-destructive. They are culling themselves.
...
We are collectively responsible for each other. Every form of top-down control is a form of collectivism and top-down control will always be necessary. It is a mistake to view the current trend of leftism as some sort of disease. It is not. Leftism is simply the natural and inevitable result of the missignalling introduced into society by usury. Usury creates an eternal growth imperative that persists regardless of underlying conditions. Usury was instrumental in destroying feudalism and releasing the tremendous economic growth that was previously inhibited by the restraints imposed by "nobility". However, nothing in the universe exhibits eternal exponential growth and usury requires this. Leftism or collectivism is the expected and necessary result of an underlying structural and moral problem. Its not even bad really its is just inevitable consequence. I will write more on this when I have time. |
|
|
|
I agree with this. I contemplate if there are ways we could get organized and fight back as a society of like minded men, but we also have to remember that we are all different. So what would be our common goal or bond that would be compatible with increasing tolerance of differences (i.e. increasing degrees-of-freedom) yet also sustain the coordination long-term across generations?Even my Cherokee ancestors who were very organized and well guarded canyon entrances were duped by some traitors within their ranks, then ensued the Trail of Tears. That was done by Andrew Jackson, that so many goldbugs admire. What is the absolute truth that would unite men?When Jason Hommel asked me in 2006 what was my goal (he is a psychology major), I said, "I want to know the truth". Edit: the unstoppable power of leaderless organization: http://www.starfishandspider.com/preview/index.htmlYou know my answer to this question. The Foundations of Contentionism:Cycles of ContentionThe Rise of KnowledgeEntropy is InformationThe Math of Optimal FitnessThe Limits of ScienceReligion and ProgressThe Nature of FreedomMorality and SinKnowledge, Entropy and FreedomFor those who wish to skip all the supporting logic my answer is in the last paragraph of the bottom link. |
|
|
|
...
I have nothing more to say, you are clearly deluded as about 90% of people on earth, and this is why you are creating hell on earth
To murder is a crime, since you have free will you are able to murder other people, but is it right to do? Of course not.
The same logic applies to reproducing, it is an illogical, irrational, action supported only by a fake pleasure of ejaculation...
This logic is twisted xSplit. You equate reproduction to murder and then suggest that everyone who wants a family should just adopt. I think you would benefit from reading the Health and Religion thread. Adoption is one of the most selfless acts a person can do. It is an attempt (at great cost) to shelter the innocent from the moral failings of their parents or from ravages of cruel fate. Adoption is not a substitute for reproduction. That fact that it can serve as an emotionally substitute for some is tangential. The most toxic form of leftism celebrates utter self-destruction for the "greater good". I can think of few moral foundations more treacherous then arguing that reproduction is akin to murder. Such twisted thinking follows naturally from a culture of entitlements. The concept that are "owed" large financial rewards from birth. In a world of entitlements more children means less for those already born. Thus it becomes logical to turn on the unborn. We are not transitioning to "hell on earth" we are learning. We are slow learners. Cycles of Contention | | Cycle #1 | Cycle #2 | Cycle #3 | Cycle #4 | Cycle #5 | Cycle #6 | | Mechanism of Control | Knowledge of Evil | Warlordism | Holy War | Usury | Universal Surveillance | Hedonism | | Rulers | The Strong | Despots | God Kings/Monarchs | Capitalists | Oligarchs (NWO) | Decentralized Government | | Life of the Ruled | "Nasty, Brutish, Short" | Slaves | Surfs | Debtors | Basic Income Recipients | Knowledge Workers | | Facilitated Advance | Knowledge of Good | Commerce | Rule of Law | Growth | Transparency | Ascesis |
|
|
|
|
My only quibbles (or clarifications) is that some aspects of the old order may waterfall collapse, so in that sense it may feel like a collapse to some sectors, e.g. as we discussed in the Economic Devastation thread that some jobs may be entirely eliminated by automation.
Also what reasoning do you apply to put Hedonism in Cycle #6 and not #5?
Seems to me the hedonism will head for a peak as the Marxist crap heads for a peak in Cycle #5 because it is the Marxist crap that finances wide-scale hedonism.
...
Hedonism as a mechanism of mass control is not yet ready for prime time. Much like most of us are not yet ready to be knowledge workers. Both of these are coming but not quite yet. The links below highlight some of my thinking on the upcoming power of hedonism. At war with World of Warcraft: an addict tells his story https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/aug/29/world-of-warcraft-video-game-addictAt the height of his addiction Ryan van Cleave had little time for his real life. World of Warcraft, a video game, had crowded out everything: his wife and children, his job as a university English professor.
Living inside World of Warcraft (WoW) seemed preferable to the drudgery of everyday life... "Playing WoW makes me feel godlike," Van Cleave wrote. "I have ultimate control and can do what I want with few real repercussions. The real world makes me feel impotent Kids turn violent as parents battle ‘digital heroin’ addiction http://nypost.com/2016/12/17/kids-turn-violent-as-parents-battle-digital-heroin-addiction/“He would refuse to do anything unless I would let him play his game,” she said. Barbara, who had discarded her TV 25 years ago, made the mistake of using the game as a bargaining tool.
When she tried to take his computer away, he attacked her “with a dazed look on his face — his eyes were not his.” She called the police. Shocked, they asked if the 9-year-old was on drugs. Virtual reality is coming to sex, sports and Facebook http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/03/27/virtual-reality-oculus-rift-facebook-vr-will-be-everywhere/70547882/VR now is poised not only to challenge reality's stranglehold on the way we engage with life, but possibly even eclipse it for sheer thrills.
Gaming. Concerts. Family reunions. Sporting events. Even sex – all of it will be experienced in a hyper-real fashion and with a commonness that technologists predict will rival our incessant smartphone use today.
“'VR has been around for decades, but it will stick this time.'” - Todd Richmond, USC Then there is the whole robot 'girlfriend' thing http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/first-interactive-robot-girlfriend-china-7800073China has unveiled its first interactive robot - which can chat away to humans and even take orders from iCloud.
When the researcher says "hello" to the robot, she replies: "Yes, my lord, what can I do for you."
When asked to "please wave your hand" she does just that, much to the astonishment of those watching.
Her developers say she is programmed to match human facial expressions, body and mouth movements.
Hedonism will probably be the primary mechanism of social control but not quite yet its time is coming. The surveillance state by contrast is more or less ready to take off now. First comes Orwell then Huxley. So what is not clear to me is that transparency with good planning is the best strategy, or if the best strategy is hiding wealth.
Thoughts?
I honestly do not think hiding will be possible on a large scale so I would go with good planning. |
|
|
|
...
CoinCube
That's an interesting table showing Cycles of Contention, but (as I often mention to iamnotback), there are too many variables out there, too many "Swans", for me to find it useful in a practical way.
Usefulness of course depends on accuracy and more importantly time frames. A world of universal surveillance and basic income recipients would necessitate a very different strategy for wealth preservation than one might deploy under our current economic structure. In my opinion contingency planning for such a scenario is wise. |
|
|
|
No offense, but your thesis on a so called knowledge age is completely irrational. When complex systems collapse, they devolve into simpler ones. They never jump into a higher tier of complexity. Complex systems also tend to require exponential resource (energy) curves. Peak conventional crude oil already happened in 2004. Peak working age demographic already occurred in every nation that matters.
Wealth comes from people doing work in the real world, not shuffling around papers. That work is either done from things like burning fuel to do the work for you, or humans physically doing it themselves. With both working age demographic and energy output declining, people will be spending more time and effort doing work for the basic necessities and nobody is going to be overpaying people for shuffling numbers on a computer unless it involves something to do with solving the energy problem.
...
So, I hate to rain on your parade, but there is no so called knowledge age unless there's some type of enormous energy breakthrough. Russian govt energy analysts see things getting really bad by around 2020 and say there is no technological solution in sight. There is no coming out on the other side of the monetary reset with some type of "utopia". In fact, one of the reasons it's currently crashing is because it relies on infinite growth and the energy situation prevents that.
In my opinion your error here is looking at this situation as one of collapse. The system is not going to collapse just change. We might not like the change and our quality of life especially in the West may decline but our disliking does not equate to collapse. What we are witnessing is not the start of collapse but the undermining of the old order as it is swept away to form the new. I agree there will be a monetary reset and I agree we will not come out of that reset into some form of utopia but into something else entirely. That something else will have its merits and its faults. I believe we are currently on the verge of transitioning from cycle #4 to cycle #5 in the post below. Sustained increases in living conditions result only from gains in knowledge. Top-down control plays in role in the the organization needed to facilitate the emergence of new knowledge. Top-down control facilitates its own removal for new knowledge eventually circumvents and undermines the prior order allowing society to climb to higher energy systems. The new system is also one of top-down control but the knowledge gained allows for an overall relaxation of the imposed order increasing economic degrees-of-freedom. The evolution of the social contract is a progressive climb to higher potential energy systems with increased degrees of freedom. The state of nature begat tribalism. Tribalism grew into despotism. Despotism advanced into monarchy. Monarchies were replaced by republics. It is likely that in the near future republics will be consumed by world government, and perhaps someday world government will evolve into decentralized government. Each iteration has a common theme for each advance increases the number of individuals able to engage in cooperative activity while lowering the number of individuals able to defect. Each iteration increases the sustainable degrees of freedom the system can support. Cycles of Contention | | Cycle #1 | Cycle #2 | Cycle #3 | Cycle #4 | Cycle #5 | Cycle #6 | | Mechanism of Control | Knowledge of Evil | Warlordism | Holy War | Usury | Universal Surveillance | Hedonism | | Rulers | The Strong | Despots | God Kings/Monarchs | Capitalists | Oligarchs (NWO) | Decentralized Government | | Life of the Ruled | "Nasty, Brutish, Short" | Slaves | Surfs | Debtors | Basic Income Recipients | Knowledge Workers | | Facilitated Advance | Knowledge of Good | Commerce | Rule of Law | Growth | Transparency | Ascesis |
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
