Show Posts
Subject: Mar 17: we LOVE Armstrong more than he realizes
From: iamback
Date: Tue, March 17, 2015 1:08 pm
To: "Armstrong Economics" <armstrongeconomics@gmail.com>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Europe is partially screwed, but has a socialist net that will keep default states afloat because it's in the interest of all intertwined.
Illogical. In order to fund that safety net, it must expropriate from the productive sector, which is why Europe has no productive sector remaining, thus Europe will not be able to produce what it needs internally (will worsen in a negative feedback loop spiral flush into the toilet bowl) and thus it will rely on the Euro FX value to purchase for import its needs, but the Euro is collapsing in value as Euros are printed to bailout the safety net (indirectly via the banks who hold the sovereign bonds).
Nations in heavy debt are screwed (i.e. the US), but the US can self sustain with it's political power and military might in the world.
Correct the USA can expropriate from its productive sector and the productive sectors of the entire world with FATCA, the military, and mostly importantly because the dollar is the reserve currency of the world's financial system.
The USA is the wounded Godzilla that can possibly drag the entire global economy down into a Dark Age, if we don't find solutions.
The solution I advocate is a bottom-up, grassroots technological anonymous crypto-currency and fledgling Knowledge Age. I also concur with Martin Armstrong's vision of a global restructuring (when and if it becomes viable), because this is a way to avoid sinking too far into a Dark Age while waiting for the Knowledge Age to grow and take over with anonymous crypto-currency which the USA can not expropriate.
Armstrong seems to misconstrue my debate with him as one of total disrespect or disagreement. Rather I very much appreciate Armstrong's models, his sharing, his insights. My disagreement with Armstrong only rests on him preaching EXCLUSIVELY on top-down solutions and not also recognizing the potential rise of Creative Destruction. In the past few blog posts, he has alluded to Creative Destruction, but he still denies that anonymous crypto-currency and anonymous internet systems could potentially rise. He paints his world view that only he has the Solutions and doesn't recognize that DECENTRALIZED (not top-down controlled!) hackers are also very important for the world's future. Armstrong should recognize that he is also hacker, as defined correctly by Eric S. Raymond.
http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/H/hacker.html
Quote from: Eric S. Raymond
hacker: n.
1. ...A person who delights in having an intimate understanding of the internal workings of a system, computers and computer networks in particular.
2. One who programs enthusiastically (even obsessively) or who enjoys programming rather than just theorizing about programming.
3. A person capable of appreciating hack value.
6. An expert or enthusiast of any kind. One might be an astronomy hacker, for example.
7. One who enjoys the intellectual challenge of creatively overcoming or circumventing limitations.
hack value: n.
Often adduced as the reason or motivation for expending effort toward a seemingly useless goal, the point being that the accomplished goal is a hack. For example, MacLISP had features for reading and printing Roman numerals, which were installed purely for hack value. See display hack for one method of computing hack value, but this cannot really be explained, only experienced. As Louis Armstrong once said when asked to explain jazz: “Man, if you gotta ask you'll never know.”
1. ...A person who delights in having an intimate understanding of the internal workings of a system, computers and computer networks in particular.
2. One who programs enthusiastically (even obsessively) or who enjoys programming rather than just theorizing about programming.
3. A person capable of appreciating hack value.
6. An expert or enthusiast of any kind. One might be an astronomy hacker, for example.
7. One who enjoys the intellectual challenge of creatively overcoming or circumventing limitations.
hack value: n.
Often adduced as the reason or motivation for expending effort toward a seemingly useless goal, the point being that the accomplished goal is a hack. For example, MacLISP had features for reading and printing Roman numerals, which were installed purely for hack value. See display hack for one method of computing hack value, but this cannot really be explained, only experienced. As Louis Armstrong once said when asked to explain jazz: “Man, if you gotta ask you'll never know.”
Eric Raymond explains well why I am annoyed with Armstrong transitioning from his engineers vocation to a fucking political soapbox spouting off about the only Solutions are top-down destruction into a one-world reserve morass.
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3514
Quote from: Eric S. Raymond
Those who can’t build, talk
One of the side-effects of using Google+ is that I’m getting exposed to a kind of writing I usually avoid – ponderous divagations on how the Internet should be and the meaning of it all written by people who’ve never gotten their hands dirty actually making it work. No, I’m not talking about users – I don’t mind listening to those. I’m talking about punditry about the Internet, especially the kind full of grand prescriptive visions. The more I see of this, the more it irritates the crap out of me. But I’m not in the habit of writing in public about merely personal complaints; there’s a broader cultural problem here that needs to be aired.
The following rant will not name names. But if you are offended by it, you are probably meant to be.
I have been using the Internet since 1976. I got involved in its engineering in 1983. Over the years, I’ve influenced the design of the Domain Name System, written a widely-used SMTP transport, helped out with RFCs, and done time on IETF mailing lists. I’ve never been a major name in Internet engineering the way I have been post-1997 in the open-source movement, but I was a respectable minor contributor to the former long before I became famous in the latter. I know the people and the culture that gets the work done; they’re my peers and I am theirs. Which is why I’m going to switch from “them” to “us” and “we” now, and talk about something that really cranks us off.
We’re not thrilled by people who rave endlessly about the wonder of the net. We’re not impressed by brow-furrowing think-pieces about how it ought to written by people who aren’t doing the design and coding to make stuff work. We’d be far happier if pretty much everybody who has ever been described as ‘digerati’ were dropped in a deep hole where they can blabber at each other without inflicting their pompous vacuities on us or the rest of the world.
In our experience, generally the only non-engineers whose net-related speculations are worth listening to are science-fiction writers, and by no means all of those; anybody to whom the label “cyberpunk” has been attached usually deserves to be dropped in that deep hole along with the so-called digerati.
There are specific recurring kinds of errors in speculative writing about the Internet that we get exceedingly tired of seeing over and over again. One is blindness to problems of scale; another is handwaving about deployment costs; and a third is inability to notice when a proposed cooperative ‘solution’ is ruined by misalignment of incentives. There are others, but these will stand as representative for why we very seldom find any value in the writings of people who talk but don’t build.
We seldom complain about this in public because, really, how would it help?
One of the side-effects of using Google+ is that I’m getting exposed to a kind of writing I usually avoid – ponderous divagations on how the Internet should be and the meaning of it all written by people who’ve never gotten their hands dirty actually making it work. No, I’m not talking about users – I don’t mind listening to those. I’m talking about punditry about the Internet, especially the kind full of grand prescriptive visions. The more I see of this, the more it irritates the crap out of me. But I’m not in the habit of writing in public about merely personal complaints; there’s a broader cultural problem here that needs to be aired.
The following rant will not name names. But if you are offended by it, you are probably meant to be.
I have been using the Internet since 1976. I got involved in its engineering in 1983. Over the years, I’ve influenced the design of the Domain Name System, written a widely-used SMTP transport, helped out with RFCs, and done time on IETF mailing lists. I’ve never been a major name in Internet engineering the way I have been post-1997 in the open-source movement, but I was a respectable minor contributor to the former long before I became famous in the latter. I know the people and the culture that gets the work done; they’re my peers and I am theirs. Which is why I’m going to switch from “them” to “us” and “we” now, and talk about something that really cranks us off.
We’re not thrilled by people who rave endlessly about the wonder of the net. We’re not impressed by brow-furrowing think-pieces about how it ought to written by people who aren’t doing the design and coding to make stuff work. We’d be far happier if pretty much everybody who has ever been described as ‘digerati’ were dropped in a deep hole where they can blabber at each other without inflicting their pompous vacuities on us or the rest of the world.
In our experience, generally the only non-engineers whose net-related speculations are worth listening to are science-fiction writers, and by no means all of those; anybody to whom the label “cyberpunk” has been attached usually deserves to be dropped in that deep hole along with the so-called digerati.
There are specific recurring kinds of errors in speculative writing about the Internet that we get exceedingly tired of seeing over and over again. One is blindness to problems of scale; another is handwaving about deployment costs; and a third is inability to notice when a proposed cooperative ‘solution’ is ruined by misalignment of incentives. There are others, but these will stand as representative for why we very seldom find any value in the writings of people who talk but don’t build.
We seldom complain about this in public because, really, how would it help?
Note Armstrong may not realize that one of the reasons his site exploded in popularity since 2013, is because I (who have read him since he started writing from prison) have been quoting him with links to his site from this Bitcointalk.org forum. If he shuts off his sharing, this will only hurt his site's popularity. He can verify that some of my threads on Bitcointalk.org have 60,000+ reads and he can verify via Alexa.com that Bitcointalk.org has 20 times more page views than ArmstrongEconomics.com does. I do agree with him charging for some of the details of his model's predictions, because it makes the information more valuable. But if he thinks crawling into a shell because he feels defensive about debate and discussion, then he has really lost objectivity. Hey Armstrong, grow some skin on your back. Just because you've finally met your intellectual cohort, embrace it, don't wither away into a hole in the ground!
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/03/17/what-can-we-do-3/
Quote from: Armstrong
We will even shift some info away from the blog for those who are clients in order to preserve the integrity of some of the analysis making it more exclusive for it is widely plagiarized and distorted by others desperate to stand on their soap-boxes with nothing to offer society misrepresenting the facts and what we even say.
The irony is Armstrong is describing himself below. He thinks he is describing me, but I am not on the soapbox saying that I have the only Solution and that it requires all of us to bound together in the same agreement. Rather I am saying that we hackers can experiment with many variants decentralized (bottom-up) and if humanity adopts any of our solutions over time, then that is a free market result entirely consistent with thermodynamics, entropy, physics and Armstrong's cyclical models.
Quote from: Armstrong
The conspiracy nuts cannot accept that the world functions in a fascinating way according to physics as does everything else. No, they must attribute all powerful knowledge and evil plots to explain why they cannot escape the mob to see the reality of the world as it exists. They pretend to be all knowledgeable, yet close their mind to knowledge that does not satisfy their conclusionary expectations. They cannot rise above and observe their own actions and participation with unbiased eyes. To them, the world plots against them.
Armstrong even admits is he is fighting against thermodynamics, entropy, physics and his own cyclical models:
Quote from: Armstrong
I tried before to prevent trends and had to discover that they are set in motion and must run their course. I gave up and saw firsthand there was just no way to do anything for that would require altering humanity and changing the laws of physics that govern the markets which must swing between maximum and minimum entropy.
Yes, I could have saved Social Security transforming it into a wealth fund. But self-interests of politicians is always too overwhelming. True, I could revise the world monetary system in 30 days or less and correct the mistakes to prevent the crash and burn. But this is delusional for that would require people to see the problem and then say fix it. Their own self-interest is always in maintaining the status-quo.
Yes, I could have saved Social Security transforming it into a wealth fund. But self-interests of politicians is always too overwhelming. True, I could revise the world monetary system in 30 days or less and correct the mistakes to prevent the crash and burn. But this is delusional for that would require people to see the problem and then say fix it. Their own self-interest is always in maintaining the status-quo.
Armstrong has put himself in a [Hegelian Dialectic] dilemma because he feels he needs to convince society-at-large of the necessity of a top-down restructuring Solution in order to avoid a Dark Age, and he is trying to say that we who want bottom-up Creative Destruction are the reason the majority is always wrong. This egregious discombobulated illogic saddens me, because I otherwise respect Armstrong very much. It is so sad to see he has created these false demons in his mind.
Apparently Armstrong lost some of his sanity when he was tortured in prison. I can understand that. I pray he can come to his senses. I would help him any way I can. I love the man.
He wants so badly to fight those who tortured him that he thinks anyone who is questions his top-down solutions is perpetuating the torture of mankind. This is visceral for Armstrong. He can still feel the torture he went through in prison. This is sort of the dual of the Stockholm Syndrome.
Quote from: Armstrong
It would be like a man with a gun comes to rob you and you then try to argue that guns are illegal and he should not do this. He will laugh if not shoot you.
Between the media not reporting because they are controlled by corporate entities whose self-interest is at stake and the hopeless conspiracy theory advocates who seek to blame grand schemes without proof to explain their own helplessness, the majority will be misdirected and left hopelessly lost in the folds of their own mind knee deep in delusional bullshit. So it may appear hopeless, yet this is required for the majority must always be wrong and that is the energy that passes through the mob to create the boom and bust cycle. The majority will become convince at the top of a market that it will never end, Then, the slightest whiff of error creates the flash crash. They will blame some short-player to explain their greed and mistake, but in truth, they are the culprit. When you are at the extreme on both sides, they because the fuel to propel the market in the opposite direction. They will even outlaw shorts assuming they have manipulated the market. But that always makes it worse for only the short has the courage to buy in the middle of a panic.
Between the media not reporting because they are controlled by corporate entities whose self-interest is at stake and the hopeless conspiracy theory advocates who seek to blame grand schemes without proof to explain their own helplessness, the majority will be misdirected and left hopelessly lost in the folds of their own mind knee deep in delusional bullshit. So it may appear hopeless, yet this is required for the majority must always be wrong and that is the energy that passes through the mob to create the boom and bust cycle. The majority will become convince at the top of a market that it will never end, Then, the slightest whiff of error creates the flash crash. They will blame some short-player to explain their greed and mistake, but in truth, they are the culprit. When you are at the extreme on both sides, they because the fuel to propel the market in the opposite direction. They will even outlaw shorts assuming they have manipulated the market. But that always makes it worse for only the short has the courage to buy in the middle of a panic.
Again I reiterate to Armstrong that the repeating outcomes of the collusion of banksters, central banks, and governance are facts he can't deny (and in fact he has proven with his excruciatingly detailed study of history). Whether it happens only by an invisible hand, by plans with alliances, or some combination of those, doesn't matter. My point remains valid that bottom-up technological solutions that create new frontiers in the Knowledge Age are also desirable.
Not only desirable, but I posit maybe the only solution. Because Armstrong must admit that it is very likely the cancer of our current system doesn't die until it has killed the host, thus the wounded Godzilla is going to be forcing us hackers to develop the anonymous technological solutions.
Touché.
:wink:
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Mar 18: Armstrong in denial of his stated world view
From: iamback
Date: Tue, March 17, 2015 1:25 pm
To: "Armstrong Economics" <armstrongeconomics@gmail.com>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armstrong could benefit from adhering to his own advice and stop trying to force his world view of the future as top-down, Hegelian Dialectic dilemma. He ought to admit that just maybe our anonymous crypto-currency Creative Destruction might end up being the solution and not his post-prison-torture Stockholm Syndrome psychosis.
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/03/17/how-i-see-the-world/
Quote from: Armstrong
Einstein was aware of his celebrity, but he never surrendered his own humble humanity. To live is to think, to conform is to surrender your thoughts. It is a willingness to expand the mind and simultaneously to never assume you are right. With each new day comes something new to learn and with that knowledge comes wisdom.
To see the future, we must comprehend the past. Opinion has little value for soap-boxes do not truly make a person taller. This is not a contest of who is right or wrong, for those who confine themselves to such a black and white world will never see the color that brightens the world. Wisdom comes from knowledge, which comes from trial and exploration. To assume you are right and reject any challenge is the mark of a fool, not of wisdom.
Einstein’s approach to the world was precisely that. Never surrender your imagination for within that spirit lies the truth and all wisdom.
To see the future, we must comprehend the past. Opinion has little value for soap-boxes do not truly make a person taller. This is not a contest of who is right or wrong, for those who confine themselves to such a black and white world will never see the color that brightens the world. Wisdom comes from knowledge, which comes from trial and exploration. To assume you are right and reject any challenge is the mark of a fool, not of wisdom.
Einstein’s approach to the world was precisely that. Never surrender your imagination for within that spirit lies the truth and all wisdom.
)...
