Waterfall collapse of the Industrial Age to usher in the Knowledge AgeAlthough I think the trend of your observations (Knowledge Economy, etc.) is correct, these evolutions typically take longer than we think. Just like the fall of the Berlin wall, bankrupt paradigms waterfall collapse to usher in the new.    The physical economy is bankrupt because the economies-of-scale are too great and the maximum division-of-labor can not advance. It may seem valuable to you because the ruler you are using to measure with is the illusion of a massive $200 trillion global debt bubble. Society is trying to prop up that bankrupt Industrial Age paradigm with debt and socialism. Knowledge production generates several orders-of-magnitude more value per human than the Industrial Age. Heck in just a few months in 1998, I (all by myself) wrote some software that was generating up to $30,000 a month in today's dollar. The internet has 10 times more population now. Sorry the USA has lost the advantage of the waterways. That paradigm is dead. This is another reason China and Asia will rise, because they have more human capital and their economies aren't burdened with the political dead weight of an aging population that is not able to make the waterfall transition and $trillions of promises to boomers. Knowledge workers will move to cities (this is already underway with integrated BPO communities for example in the Philippines), no need to move goods to remote sparsely populated locations. Besides, the physical goods are a small fraction of the wealth generated from knowledge work. There is no reason that Silicon valley has to be in the USA, it could be any where that knowledge workers congregate. And the knowledge workers will run away from the USA when it turns draconian when the economy implodes after 2016 and the totalitarian expropriation of wealth goes into hyperdrive. Another two charts supporting my position of the death of stored capital and fixed capital investment Industrial Age model shows that interest rates and commodity prices have been declining inexorably since the damn of human civilization:   Michael Pettis is apparently a highly respected observer of China and their economy. I wish I had more time to read him, as I think he has China pretty well figured out (and it ain't pretty in China).
Pettis expects a top-down restructuring of China to rebalance from an economy that is highly unbalanced in the fixed capital investment and Industrial Age paradigm, to a more balanced consumer share of the economy. In other words, China has been subsidizing global manufacturing at below cost, by massively expanding debt and stealing from the workers by suppressing interest rates and their import purchasing power with the Yuan peg. I think Prof. Pettis is wrong and the Communist Party will lose control of China as the contagion of the global bankrupt paradigm domino collapses. This is why war between China and Japan is probably imminent, as the leaders of China try to invoke nationalism to retain their grip on power. But I think by 2032 (perhaps as early as 2024), China and Asia will fracture away from control and emerge with bottom-up high performance in the Knowledge Age. Understand the Chinese people are just going with the flow of the Communist Party system but every step since the 1980s has been greater and greater freedoms and more autonomous governance and business. Now I read that Christmas is sweeping China a popular fad and the leaders are trying to outlaw it (haha the people ignore the leaders). Asia has been bottled up in cronyism since the mid 1900s, and now suddenly the cronyism is falling away because it is not viable economically, and the youth have woken up given the internet. Even the youth in Japan want to get rid of the xenophobia.
|
|
|
|
Waterfall collapse of the Industrial Age to usher in the Knowledge AgeAlthough I think the trend of your observations (Knowledge Economy, etc.) is correct, these evolutions typically take longer than we think. Just like the fall of the Berlin wall, bankrupt paradigms waterfall collapse to usher in the new. The physical economy is bankrupt because the economies-of-scale are too great and the maximum division-of-labor can not advance. It may seem valuable to you because the ruler you are using to measure with is the illusion of a massive $200 trillion global debt bubble. Society is trying to prop up that bankrupt Industrial Age paradigm with debt and socialism. Knowledge production generates several orders-of-magnitude more value per human than the Industrial Age. Heck in just a few months in 1998, I (all by myself) wrote some software that was generating up to $30,000 a month in today's dollar. The internet has 10 times more population now. Sorry the USA has lost the advantage of the waterways. That paradigm is dead. This is another reason China and Asia will rise, because they have more human capital and their economies aren't burdened with the political dead weight of an aging population that is not able to make the waterfall transition and $trillions of promises to boomers. Knowledge workers will move to cities (this is already underway with integrated BPO communities for example in the Philippines), no need to move goods to remote sparsely populated locations. Besides, the physical goods are a small fraction of the wealth generated from knowledge work. There is no reason that Silicon valley has to be in the USA, it could be any where that knowledge workers congregate. And the knowledge workers will run away from the USA when it turns draconian when the economy implodes after 2016 and the totalitarian expropriation of wealth goes into hyperdrive. Another two charts supporting my position of the death of stored capital and fixed capital investment Industrial Age model shows that interest rates and commodity prices have been declining inexorably since the damn of human civilization: Michael Pettis is apparently a highly respected observer of China and their economy. I wish I had more time to read him, as I think he has China pretty well figured out (and it ain't pretty in China).
Pettis expects a top-down restructuring of China to rebalance from an economy that is highly unbalanced in the fixed capital investment and Industrial Age paradigm, to a more balanced consumer share of the economy. In other words, China has been subsidizing global manufacturing at below cost, by massively expanding debt and stealing from the workers by suppressing interest rates and their import purchasing power with the Yuan peg. I think Prof. Pettis is wrong and the Communist Party will lose control of China as the contagion of the global bankrupt paradigm domino collapses. This is why war between China and Japan is probably imminent, as the leaders of China try to invoke nationalism to retain their grip on power. But I think by 2032 (perhaps as early as 2024), China and Asia will fracture away from control and emerge with bottom-up high performance in the Knowledge Age. Understand the Chinese people are just going with the flow of the Communist Party system but every step since the 1980s has been greater and greater freedoms and more autonomous governance and business. Now I read that Christmas is sweeping China a popular fad and the leaders are trying to outlaw it (haha the people ignore the leaders). Asia has been bottled up in cronyism since the mid 1900s, and now suddenly the cronyism is falling away because it is not viable economically, and the youth have woken up given the internet. Even the youth in Japan want to get rid of the xenophobia.
|
|
|
|
http://blog.mpettis.com/2014/12/how-might-a-china-slowdown-affect-the-world/#comment-108021Currently, China is economically centralized and politically decentralized. If Prof. Pettis is correct, China will become more economically decentralized and more politically centralized. That is a thought provoking point. You are I assume pointing out that local governments are given a lot of autonomy (to borrow and build) which is one of the primary causes of that the fixed capital investment dominates the share of the GDP in Pettis' model of China's dilemma. You are also implicitly pointing out for example that the central government will need to assume all of the bad debt....By the way, do you know how much cheaper transport costs by water are vs transport costs by land? When you add in the costs of the road and rail networks, we’re talking about a 70 fold increase in costs when you’re talking about transport costs by land...most of the navigable waterway lies in the south of the country ... protect everyone’s [physical not virtual Knowledge] trade, the free trade order we’ve had since World War II will be gone. IMO irrelevant.
Again I find my disagreement with your analysis hinges on my theory of a fledgling Knowledge Age which will render the physical economy irrelevant. You are egregiously overvaluing the importance of physical trade in the future economy. I believe your model is wrong.
The top-down central government is entirely incapable of being in tune with this bottom-up global paradigm shift of economics. Even I assert Thomas Piketty got the facts wrong in his bestseller Capital in the Twenty-First Century.
The currency wars and China's subsidy of global manufacturing are a beggar-thy-neighbor competition into the deflationary abyss, because the Industrial Age is dying. Factories can produce more than humans can consume in a non-debt saturated economy and only require a small number of humans to do so. Even Oxford U. predicted that 47% of existing jobs would be replaced by automation before 2032. The world's population has to move into the higher valued Knowledge Age, but the governments are subsidizing the old Industrial Age statism model to prevent the masses from being motivated to make the transition. Thus the governments are pushing us to the precipice of a discontinuous, waterfall collapse adjustment and overshoot with a bifurcation of the global economy into a (potentially megadeath) dying statism cancer and a fledgling autonomous Knowledge Age.
I expect China to collapse into this deflationary abyss and fledgling Knowledge Age chaos along with the rest of the globe, but Asia will bottom first because it has much lower levels of constituent liabilities and taxes. It is as simple as that. Your model of the future of the USA is wrong. The future is about how much the State gets out of the way and allows the Knowledge Age to prosper. In the USA, Obama wants to use executive power to take totalitarian control of the internet regulating it as a public utility via the FCC and taxing it 16%. Ditto France. Spain taxes sunlight. The West is done, stick a fork in it. Asia is the future. Sorry Suvy your physical trade model is archaic.
{satire}Prof. Pettis is wise to be moonlighting as an economist while (to fund) his serious career is in his Chinese music label, because creative knowledge production is where the future value is.{/satire}
P.S. Also trade is a very small component of international capital flows, so trade has nearly no relevance on the imminent tectonic contagion of global finance.
|
|
|
|
http://blog.mpettis.com/2014/12/how-might-a-china-slowdown-affect-the-world/#comment-108021Currently, China is economically centralized and politically decentralized. If Prof. Pettis is correct, China will become more economically decentralized and more politically centralized. That is a thought provoking point. You are I assume pointing out that local governments are given a lot of autonomy (to borrow and build) which is one of the primary causes of that the fixed capital investment dominates the share of the GDP in Pettis' model of China's dilemma. You are also implicitly pointing out for example that the central government will need to assume all of the bad debt....By the way, do you know how much cheaper transport costs by water are vs transport costs by land? When you add in the costs of the road and rail networks, we’re talking about a 70 fold increase in costs when you’re talking about transport costs by land...most of the navigable waterway lies in the south of the country ... protect everyone’s [physical not virtual Knowledge] trade, the free trade order we’ve had since World War II will be gone. IMO irrelevant.
Again I find my disagreement with your analysis hinges on my theory of a fledgling Knowledge Age which will render the physical economy irrelevant. You are egregiously overvaluing the importance of physical trade in the future economy. I believe your model is wrong.
The top-down central government is entirely incapable of being in tune with this bottom-up global paradigm shift of economics. Even I assert Thomas Piketty got the facts wrong in his bestseller Capital in the Twenty-First Century.
The currency wars and China's subsidy of global manufacturing are a beggar-thy-neighbor competition into the deflationary abyss, because the Industrial Age is dying. Factories can produce more than humans can consume in a non-debt saturated economy and only require a small number of humans to do so. Even Oxford U. predicted that 47% of existing jobs would be replaced by automation before 2032. The world's population has to move into the higher valued Knowledge Age, but the governments are subsidizing the old Industrial Age statism model to prevent the masses from being motivated to make the transition. Thus the governments are pushing us to the precipice of a discontinuous, waterfall collapse adjustment and overshoot with a bifurcation of the global economy into a (potentially megadeath) dying statism cancer and a fledgling autonomous Knowledge Age.
I expect China to collapse into this deflationary abyss and fledgling Knowledge Age chaos along with the rest of the globe, but Asia will bottom first because it has much lower levels of constituent liabilities and taxes. It is as simple as that. Your model of the future of the USA is wrong. The future is about how much the State gets out of the way and allows the Knowledge Age to prosper. In the USA, Obama wants to use executive power to take totalitarian control of the internet regulating it as a public utility via the FCC and taxing it 16%. Ditto France. Spain taxes sunlight. The West is done, stick a fork in it. Asia is the future. Sorry Suvy your physical trade model is archaic.
{satire}Prof. Pettis is wise to be moonlighting as an economist while (to fund) his serious career is in his Chinese music label, because creative knowledge production is where the future value is.{/satire}
P.S. Also trade is a very small component of international capital flows, so trade has nearly no relevance on the imminent tectonic contagion of global finance.
|
|
|
|
Recently I realized that the currency wars, are beggar-thy-neighbor competitions to see who can reduce the cost of production below 0 with debt subsidies. This is because there are too many people and the Industrial Age doesn't need them (because factories can produce more than we need with only a fewer and fewer workers). The only solution is to move to the Knowledge Age. The Industrial Age economy will bifurcate into megadeath for all those who don't jump to the Knowledge Age.
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/01/01/turkmenistan-devalue-by-18-start-of-the-deflationary-contagion/Turkmenistan Devalues its Currency by 18% – Start of the Deflationary Contagion
Turkmenistan, the former Soviet republic, devalued its currency against the US dollar by 18% for the new year. Turkmenistan is energy-rich and this is the latest sign of seriousness of the collapse in oil. This will contribute to now force the dollar higher as commodities decline, the energy producing nations will be compelled to devalue their currencies in an effort to try to make ends-meet. Devaluations will result in an attempt to create inflation to offset the deflation. We are in a major economic collapse on a global scale. Most people do not understand that this is the real threat we face. |
|
|
|
I am somewhat loathe to post this, as it is a cop-out, but it may be useful to some.
Relevant resources to review and incorporate into any formal treatment of my theories. I don't have time to do that now; too busy programming. I envision local, townhall direct hands on government (where you know every body within your Dunbar number limit) will be the surviving and thriving form of limited government that I envision will be enabled and sustained by the paradigm I promoted in my prior 3 posts.
I can dream can't I?]
It is a beautiful dream. Unfortunately, I also have a hard time envisioning this scenario lasting very long due to the same "too many chiefs and not enough Indians" problem (local governmental bodies being the "chiefs.") Local governments won't always agree with their neighboring areas. State governments were formed with their own sets of laws as a solution to this problem. The previous alternative was to invade your neighbor and subjugate them to the will of your local government while abolishing theirs... There is also the issue of international arrangements and treaties. The fledgling Knowledge Age makes this more plausibly sustainable, because we no longer need geographical economies-of-scale, because the economy becomes dominated in economic value by virtual work and production[1]. For example on dilution of the geographical aspect, we will no longer need eminent domain to construct intrastate and interstate highways through communities, because we will have flying cars and besides we don't need to physically travel to work. Even commerce can be virtually delivered with 3D printer designs downloaded and printed locally instead of physical shipping. The salient generative essence point is as always to eliminate the valuable collectivized resource which is the source of the contention and corruption. It is simply impossible to fund those horrific outcomes if there isn't a collectivization of the taxation and regulatory resource. Repeat that sentence over and over again, until the profound causal generative essence point sinks in...
If you put a big pot of honey in front of the free market, the free market will use game theory to try to steal it. ... Only eliminating that collective resource can solve the problem. This is also Armstrong's mistake when he calls for collectivized reform as a solution.
The Knowledge Age devalues everything relative to the value of virtual Knowledge work (production)[1]. Thus local communities will become more of competing venues where constituents can vote also with their feet, moving to communities whose politics and polices suit their desires. It is easy for government to crush or at least severely suppress an anonymous currency in the physical economy. Attaching long prison times for accepting payment in said currency and then sending out lots of undercover agents who try to buy things would do the trick.
It is in the digital realm, however, where the seller does not have to physically deliver goods but can anonymously deliver data/analysis/programming that anonymity becomes very difficult for governments to deal with. The thesis is that overtime this digital/knowledge economy will grow to dominate the overall economy while the physical economy progressively shrinks into relative insignificance.
I've heard of this potential scenario before and I'm happy to say that the government can't do that so easily in the US or in other armed societies... In the US, financial expression is protected under the First and Fifth Amendments. Spending money is a form of speech, and money is a form of property when possessed. Money is any medium for the exchange of value... If the government made a law criminalizing a lawful form of expression (not causing undue harm; yelling "fire" in a theater, slander, etc...") it would simply cross the line into totalitarianism and make anonymity that much more desirable. The government is just a group of loosely associated individuals following orders from somebody higher up the chain; it's not likely the government would be able to enforce the unconstitutional law without weakening itself... Agreed (but not necessarily on government employees being disloyal since they won't bite the hand that feeds them). The government is much wiser to co-opt a popular trend than to attempt to ban it as they did with Napster (which only lead to more decentralized P2P sharing apps) or state governments are trying to ban now sharing websites. So the key is to make a crypto-currency popular and incapable of being co-opted. Bitcoin and Monero are not capable of this. [1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=495527.msg6082580#msg6082580I am happy to inform that Eric says I am not banned as long as I can remain respectful and has allowed my input to be considered. I posted another summary of my idea. http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5558&cpage=1#comment-479608Thanks. A refutation would be more helpful.
The point is about the relative value of the autonomous knowledge (capital) economy versus the vertically integrated (monetary) capital economy. As the autonomy of creation increases in both granularity and speed-to-market (Linus principle of "publish often"), the number of nodes of sharing increases and the value of that knowledge sharing network increases by the nodes squared. We have chart confirmation of that law with the history of the Bitcoin price.
Specific example would be sharing a 3D printing design, and others autonomously iterating on that design. The design is open source. Music compositions, medical art, etc.
Thus the vertically integrated economy falls in relative value. How can you reason that we will pay the same or significantly for something produced by the economy that will be worth relatively much less than it had been?
With mass production, the value-added of the knowledge input was amortized over the capital cost of the factory and millions of produced copies. Thus the knowledge networking value was insignificant. Whereas, when knowledge can directly create with near real-time publishing, the knowledge networking value increases by the square and outstrips any startup costs. Moreover, incremental edits amortize the startup costs over many knowledge networking connections, and the value is the square of the connections.
The key is that open source knowledge is always changing and the knowledge workers benefit from autonomously iterating each other's designs, because the value of the network increases by the square of the participants who share. Metcalfe's (or Reed's) Law is at the heart of why sharing creates more value for all participants. That is not saying all nodes connect with all other nodes, rather the value scales proportional to the square. |
|
|
|
Your graphs use cherry-picked data...
And you accuse ME of lying?
Liar. No they don't. Yes you continue to lie. I pointed out that it was cherry-picking (3 arbitrary years cherry-picked from a century). You lied. Go check the data (from any source you can find) for the other years to educate yourself of the consistent trend to higher (what is now nosebleed) levels of government share of GDP in all Western nations. The rest of your post was as usual, vacuous noise (maybe not the first time we discussed it, but it is the 100th time now...). Note top-down isn't always "wrong", e.g. it can be the most expedient and when the system has Coasian barriers (e.g. FLOSS without my vision of micropayments) then top-down is unavoidable. My point (which I have repeated so many times) isn't that top-down can be eliminated in every scenario, rather that top-down in the IRON LAW of Political Economics (a.k.a. Resource or Fixed Capital Statism) has proven over and over in all the human history since Mesopotamia to lead to catastrophic outcomes such as world wars and megadeath. It is the definition of insanity to blame that on the free market (repeating the same outcome over and over, and blaming not the causal generative essence), when it is Coasian barriers inherent in the Tragedy of the Commons of collectivizing the taxation and regulatory purse (the honey that funds and attracts the flies) that enable the vested interests to capture the politics. Top-down exists even in bottom-up systems, because the autonomous agents in the free market are top-down decision makers for their slice of the system. The problem with top-down is a matter of the extent of what has been collectivized and whether it creates a divergent system that becomes a cancer on itself — which is the case for the collectivization of the taxation and regulatory resource. It is simply impossible to fund those horrific outcomes if there isn't a collectivization of the taxation and regulatory resource. Repeat that sentence over and over again, until the profound causal generative essence point sinks in to those loose rocks in your cranium. The Statist apologists want to convince us that with regulatory reform or with democracy, we can control that collectivized resource and put it to good use and not allow it to be captured. But history has shown over and over that is not the case. Blaming capitalism is the same as blaming opportunity cost. It is analogous to blaming an animal for killing in order to eat. If you put a big pot of honey in front of the free market, the free market will use game theory to try to steal it. No amount of regulation of the regulators who are regulating the regulation which regulates the regulators which... can solve the problem. Only eliminating that collective resource can solve the problem. This is also Armstrong's mistake when he calls for collectivized reform as a solution. During the Fixed Capital (Agriculture and especially Industrial) Age, the Coasian barrier of the power law distribution of stored capital makes impossible to eliminate collectivization, because individual labor can't generate economy-of-scale production autonomously and thus can't prosper autonomously without top-down organization and thus the clamor for redistribution. But the Knowledge Age changes this fundamentally. Recently I realized that the currency wars, are beggar-thy-neighbor competitions to see who can reduce the cost of production below 0 with debt subsidies. This is because there are too many people and the Industrial Age doesn't need them (because factories can produce more than we need with only a fewer and fewer workers). The only solution is to move to the Knowledge Age. The Industrial Age economy will bifurcate into megadeath for all those who don't jump to the Knowledge Age. Communist apologist please go away. If the abject failure of Communism is not enough evidence for you, then just proceed along your merry way to the next Gulag. I certainly don't want to stop you. I am talking to those who want to seek freedom. We are not wasting our time trying to convince Communists. |
|
|
|
Your graphs use cherry-picked data...
And you accuse ME of lying?
Liar. No they don't. Yes you continue to lie. I pointed out that it was cherry-picking (3 arbitrary years cherry-picked from a century). You lied. Go check the data (from any source you can find) for the other years to educate yourself of the consistent trend to higher (what is now nosebleed) levels of government share of GDP in all Western nations. The rest of your post was as usual, vacuous noise (maybe not the first time we discussed it, but it is the 100th time now...). Note top-down isn't always "wrong", e.g. it can be the most expedient and when the system has Coasian barriers (e.g. FLOSS without my vision of micropayments) then top-down is unavoidable. My point (which I have repeated so many times) isn't that top-down can be eliminated in every scenario, rather that top-down in the IRON LAW of Political Economics (a.k.a. Resource or Fixed Capital Statism) has proven over and over in all the human history since Mesopotamia to lead to catastrophic outcomes such as world wars and megadeath. It is the definition of insanity to blame that on the free market (repeating the same outcome over and over, and blaming not the causal generative essence), when it is Coasian barriers inherent in the Tragedy of the Commons of collectivizing the taxation and regulatory purse (the honey that funds and attracts the flies) that enable the vested interests to capture the politics. Top-down exists even in bottom-up systems, because the autonomous agents in the free market are top-down decision makers for their slice of the system. The problem with top-down is a matter of the extent of what has been collectivized and whether it creates a divergent system that becomes a cancer on itself — which is the case for the collectivization of the taxation and regulatory resource. It is simply impossible to fund those horrific outcomes if there isn't a collectivization of the taxation and regulatory resource. Repeat that sentence over and over again, until the profound causal generative essence point sinks in to those loose rocks in your cranium. The Statist apologists want to convince us that with regulatory reform or with democracy, we can control that collectivized resource and put it to good use and not allow it to be captured. But history has shown over and over that is not the case. Blaming capitalism is the same as blaming opportunity cost. It is analogous to blaming an animal for killing in order to eat. If you put a big pot of honey in front of the free market, the free market will use game theory to try to steal it. No amount of regulation of the regulators who are regulating the regulation which regulates the regulators which... can solve the problem. Only eliminating that collective resource can solve the problem. This is also Armstrong's mistake when he calls for collectivized reform as a solution. During the Fixed Capital (Agriculture and especially Industrial) Age, the Coasian barrier of the power law distribution of stored capital makes impossible to eliminate collectivization, because individual labor can't generate economy-of-scale production autonomously and thus can't prosper autonomously without top-down organization and thus the clamor for redistribution. But the Knowledge Age changes this fundamentally. Recently I realized that the currency wars, are beggar-thy-neighbor competitions to see who can reduce the cost of production below 0 with debt subsidies. This is because there are too many people and the Industrial Age doesn't need them (because factories can produce more than we need with only a fewer and fewer workers). The only solution is to move to the Knowledge Age. The Industrial Age economy will bifurcate into megadeath for all those who don't jump to the Knowledge Age. Communist apologist please go away. If the abject failure of Communism is not enough evidence for you, then just proceed along your merry way to the next Gulag. I certainly don't want to stop you. I am talking to those who want to seek freedom. We are not wasting our time trying to convince Communists. |
|
|
|
Your graphs use cherry-picked data...
And you accuse ME of lying?
Liar. No they don't. Yes you continue to lie.
most of the "real" costs are themselves bullshit and caused by wasteful capitalism:
"wasteful capitalism" is a lot like open source software, or biological evolution. Actually, FOSS is much like a direct democracy. --It's a government-like commons that provides a platform from which closed-source software can grow. --Employees spend their "other projects" time moonlighting for FOSS, much like taxes pay for government workers to share the benefits elsewhere. --Some users can be accused of being parasites because they just want free ($0) software, without contributing in any obvious way. --Other poeple can be thought of as capitalists because they eagerly look for opportunities to fork a promising project, add their own special touches and make money from it (e.g.: AOSP vs Google Android). Yeah I know, that is why I have been working on a solution to that since 2010 at least: ... For example, I expect the monetization of open source to foster granularity of project modules. So this means instead of contributing to for example Firefox or Linux source code, an open source developer could instead contribute to a module of source code with a much more general but limited scope of functionality (e.g. a HTML rendering engine or an image format rendering engine, i.e. the latter is a sub-module of the former module). These modules would then be funded by a license fee paid by the users of the software. The key here is micropayments, because each module would self-register itself on installation and request a micropayment from the user. The user would be shown an aggregation dialog box of all the micropayments for the all the modules in the software they want to install and use, and click to approve the payments. A huge advantage is then we can upgrade specific modules of a software, so we can customize software to our liking. For example, Mozilla assholes would no longer have the power to do what I warned them would be egregiously unpopular with website developers. You thus see from that Mozilla fiasco that even in open source, the IRON LAW of Political Economics applies. The way open source funding works now is that the key developers of large projects are funded by large corporations. Thus only the core developers receive remuneration. And the synergies and network-effects are highly muted as compared to the new paradigm I describe above. ... That is my grand hope. You did not rebut aminorex's point, which is that finely grained (i.e. plurality of autonomous actors thus a high degrees-of-freedom, which btw is the definition of potential energy) adaptation is the only known system for dynamic optimization when the solution space is sufficient generalized (a.k.a. random or high entropy). Rather you identified that open source is currently partially economically bound to the Theory of the Firm collectivism, because the necessary technological paradigm shifts have not yet been put into place. The Knowledge Age paradigm shift is going to kick all your fucking Statist teeth out. You will learn not to stand behind a horse and not move. what you perceive as wasteful tax is available energy expressed in diversity, from which selection occurs. it is wasteful in the sense that creativity is wasteful, and search over the solution space has a cost. avoiding those search costs often implies much more catastrophic forms of waste. a species which does not adapt eventually loses its niche, and goes extinct, because it avoided "wasteful" search. FTFY and I'm throwing it right back at you. What happens when some selections have been made, but they have become old and stale, and extremely brittle like a large crystal or a ceramic magnet? Have you considered that all the anti-government hysteria ("oh my god, please don't interfere with our Capitalist darlings, you might break them!") is itself just harmful over-protection?? Why the hell not expose capitalists to meddling governments? Can't they handle the pressure? Because as an exact copy of the mistake in the bestselling nonsense book Capital in the Twenty-First Century, you propose top-down, collectivized actions, which are the antithesis of adaptation, i.e. optimization. If you tie your shoe laces together, you can't run, you can only hop. Reducing the degrees-of-freedom, reduces the ability of a system to adapt. That this point continues to fly over the heads of you socialist pigs means it is a waste of our time to discuss with y'all and y'all should instead be ignored. Piketty assumes that government intervention was the source of the growth in the middle class after the 1930s Great Depression. The middle class in the West grew on the back of expanding debt. While the middle class in the developing world was oppressed by this system that kept cronies in power so the developing world could be raped of resources to feed that multi-decade Western debt bubble (which was radically accelerated after Nixon closed the gold window in 1971 as the boomers came into their prime working age). Piketty's analysis totally ignores the plight of the majority of the world's population from after the Great Depression until the 1990s. After the 1990s, the West debt bubble had reached saturation (negative marginal-utility-of-debt) so the only way to keep the party rolling was to pump debt into the developing world. This finally did lift the standard-of-living of the developing world at the cost of declining the real standard-of-living in the West, as real wages stagnated or declined and unemployment increased. Piketty like Karl Marx is just propaganda bullshit lies. The State intervention hasn't added anything and has given us a $200 trillion debt bubble. It was only technology and the adaptation of the free market that has added anything to the standard-of-living. |
|
|
|
Bifurcation of global economy into Knowledge Age vs. dying Fixed Capital Investment AgeCoinCube, an overshoot of socialist collapse is coming, that is precisely what I mean by a bifurcation of the economy and my assertion that Moldbug is incorrect because there can be two orthogonal currencies and economies. The Knowledge Age will be much smaller, but growing much faster in percentage terms than the socialism, potentially megadeath economy is shrinking in percentage terms. Vice versa on the nominal size change. War is coming not because of anonymity, but because what Tragedy of Commons do when they collapse is they turn the citizens' attention away from their economic sacrifices to an ideological, patriotic, nationalism goal (delusion) of justice against an external nemesis, e.g. China and Japan are preparing to go to war, and NATO and Russia both have an incentive to go to war to deflect the attention away from the accelerating collapse of Europe and Russia. ISIS is the Muslim State turning against its enemies, which are external to the religion but internal geographically. The USA will also do the same once its economy collapses with internal fracturing external to competing ideologies, e.g. socialists versus traditional conservatives. I know what was in your mind. You are thinking the government will go to war against anonymity. Hey they are already are. They are recording everything. They recently did a raid on 100s of Tor hidden services. We are headed into massive chaos. One of the important goals is to get the anonymity programmed correctly. Tor, Bitcoin, Monero are not correct. As you may or may not have deduced, I am working on this. I am a (quite an exceptional one, if I may say so) programmer.
BitcoinFreak12 et al, I have a simple request. Please do not respond to blahblahblah. He is a communist, thus he doesn't understand, will never understand, and he even lies about the statistics as all good communists and socialists do. Also you didn't include the cost of complying with regulations, which for example adds another 14% of the GDP in the USA (so roughly a 14% tax on average):   Pretty much if you live in a developed country, then 70 - 90% of your wealth is expropriated and pilfered by the combination of all those. Also most of the FREE countries you listed are subsidized by oil, and their populations have been growing faster than the oil revenues, thus they eventually will become statist jails too. Last but not least, you forgot to add the Civil Forfeiture Tax in the USA. http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/09/24/canada-warns-its-citizens-not-to-take-cash-to-usa/...
|
|
|
|
Your philosophical argument above is an oversimplification in that statism is itself natural.
What is unnatural is the Tragedy of the Commons when the statism grows beyond the Dunbar limit that human tribes were historically equipped to live in. In the primitive, post-paleozoic, hunter-gatherer time period, natural forces (feedback loop) prevented statism from outgrowing the Dunbar limit. All I am proposing is we use technology to restore the feedback loop, i.e. to give the individual sovereignty to opt out of non-local community taxation. Thus restoring our Contentionism. We will not be anonymous in our local communities where our physical presence is. I envision local, townhall direct hands on government (where you know every body within your Dunbar number limit) will be the surviving and thriving form of limited government that I envision will be enabled and sustained by the paradigm I promoted in my prior 3 posts.
I can dream can't I?
It is a beautiful dream. It can even do the community welfare more optimally. |
|
|
|
Thank you for teaching me something new! Much appreciated! |
|
|
|
If the state, money, and private property were abolished, the obstructions they pose to the acquisition of life-sustaining goods would be abolished as well.
Idiot without a fungible currency there is no trade and no maximum-division-of-labor, thus economic collapse same as with communism. You are going on my ignore list. |
|
|
|
@pension insurance.
its 20% together, so 10% the employee, 10% the employer (social tax is always half/half)
but you are correct that it is mandatory (nobody can say no to pension insurance, except you have no income of course)
40% for all Social Security as I linked to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Germany#Social_Security_Contributions@welfare state
imho it is just about the balancing.
there is only one solution for the people that can't live for themself in our society (because of physical or mental illness).
welfare or euthanasia.
if there is another solution please help me understand.
The optimum solution is smaller community governments that do local welfare, as I explained with a photo here:  | My simple dream; what is all my babble really about?
I envision local, townhall direct hands on government (where you know every body within your Dunbar number limit) will be the surviving and thriving form of limited government that I envision will be enabled and sustained by the paradigm I promoted in my prior 3 posts.
This will be the like the warm feeling of the little white Baptist church on the hill in Alabama where I sang songs of contentment and faith with my extended relatives who were farmers.
I visualize closer communities and stronger interpersonal relationships. I view happier and more socially engaged families.
I visualize we can return to communities while still interacting internationally via the internet for maximum division-of-labor and human prosperity.
I can dream can't I? |
|
|
|
|
This is real good news for a lot of countries which import oil. Precious foreign exchange gets saved.  Yes. Good news for China, India, Japan, South Africa.etc. I think the Japanese will be the most happy. Won't help them avert a massive collapse (India may be an exception). The significant impact of the falling oil price is it indicates the global economy is collapsing and it will set off a derivative chain reaction contagion due to the $trillions of derivative contracts written when oil was $100. Which will cause banking insolvency, which will cause a need for more bailouts, but this next time the plan is to take the bailouts directly from the bank depositors, which will be massively deflationary. |
|
|
|
|
I wrote about bifurcation of the economy where the majority tax themselves into oblivion, and the fewer Knowledge Age workers go untaxable in an anonymous crypto-currency.
The example of small tax free havens shows that frontiers do exist.
Btw, I know of a major country with 0% tax rate for citizens if you reside outside the country.
|
|
|
|
|
Another vacuous post that doesn't refute any point I made. Exists = exists.
|
|
|
|
Average taxation is a meaningless concept because it includes the welfare recipients who leech on the economy. I analyzed the middleclass who produce the GDP. Germany is strangling them with high taxes that average > 50% in total. Additionally the Euro was a subsidy to German exports at the expense of the rest of Europe, which is thus now bankrupted. But German banks are radically leveraged to the rest of Europe. Germany (and Europe and Japan) will collapse this year. QE won't work again, because globally the marginal-utility-of-debt has gone negative. BOHICA. Enjoy. Btw, I have one German grandparent, one UK, and one French. The 4th one is native American. its only 20% if you take your pension insurane into it. you are free to to care yourself about a future pension.
it is just law because we in germany dont want to care of people that dont do something for their pension before they get old and cant work.
that is why either you have to pay in a state controlled pension fund as a tax or pay into a private owned pension fund.
So the 20% is mandatory one way or the other? And make that 40% because apparently the employer pays a matching share (which comes out of salaries whether you like to admit it or not, because profit is a zero-sum game). The western governments will end up confiscating (nationalizing) all the private pension funds, because the societies are bankrupt. Westerners will lose their pensions. Massive rationing of health care. The grand liberal, socialism experiment is massive, FUBAR Tragedy of the Commons failure. Megadeath likely coming 2019ish. |
|
|
|
i think it [oil price] will recover very soon
Incorrect. The global economy is collapsing. And QE can't be effective again, because the marginal-utility-debt has gone negative globally (not just in the USA). This is it folks. We are staring into the abyss. Over the cliff we go! BOHICA. And you all are not ready. Even the fastest growing economy is the world is starting to tighten monetary policy. |
|
|
|
$57 by Dec. 31, exactly as Armstrong had predicted...
A useful data point if it can be confirmed. He predicted this when exactly and where. The two links were posted on December 29th and December 30th. Review my posts. I saw one a few minutes ago that I quoted from Dec. 17 (see link below), but I remember him writing that when oil first started to decline in November. The Euro prediction has been in place for more than year. As well the oil predictions have been in place for decades, which can be confirmed by obtaining a copy of that oil report he mentions from a decade ago. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
