Economic Totalitarianism

[TPTB_need_war]

Money has no value if at least a super minority doesn't also use it as money.

I seldom need to correct you, but that one is actually a fallacy.

Commodities are thought to be selected as money because they were useful in trade and consequently people started to hoard them to match their present and future spending needs. While that might be possible, there is another mechanism that is even more valid.

The buyer of last resort. Any single entity with enough economic or coercive power can make anything money by making markets for it. The modern day examples are true not only with the various fiats, which are held together by the debt and tax payments, but also in voluntary interaction. My game Crypto Kingdom has plenty of assets that are pseudo-monetary, and some of them have (rumor only) started to be used IRL transactions as well.

Also Monero has worldwide only a few thousands of users, but among my friends, it has become as accepted as Bitcoin (or cash), simply due to the perception that it retains convertibility at market rates (which of course is a nonstatement - it either does, or becomes completely worthless, a phenomenon that only arises in the market, requiring everyone to perceive it worthless, contradicting the premise).

Only a very interesting post like this can bring me back now to the forum.

What I wrote is correct and not a fallacy, yet I think we are still in agreement once we define some terms...

My quoted statement is congruent with your market observations and statement. Monero is a store-of-value for a super minority of that demographic that does not need more than say $100,000 a day in liquidity (what is the daily market float currently?), have a speculative interest in (especially anonymous) crypto, and who only want to exchange Monero for BTC (or fiat) and not for diverse goods & services. However, as I first pointed out in 2013, crypto offers a unique paradigm shift because goods & services provided in exchange for BTC can (in theory) be purchased with Monero by a seamless exchange to BTC in the purchasing process. However this exchange process risks destroying some quality of the anonymity that is one of Monero's main features. Money is also a unit-of-exchange and unit-of-account, thus no volatility in liquidity nor price (respectively). Afaik, Monero remains primarily a store-of-value asset with volatile liquidity and price (not a unit-of-exchange nor a unit-of-account). But see below...

I'll switch to dash if theres no cash

You seem to forget that money has no value if at least a super minority doesn't also use it as money.

Also differentiate assets from money, primary by the liquidity (and slowing declining marginal utility[1]). Money is highly liquid while assets have variable (over class and time domains) liquidity.

Money is not a communist concept and does not require a majority or even a superminority. I also thought so previously but everything around me seems to prove it wrong. The short history of CK has opened up the understanding that the monetary future of the Knowledge Age might be more fragmented than the dominant theory. As TPTB have declared war on money the same way as they have declared war on drugs, money needs to go underground the same way as drugs have gone. Both are very essential to the individual so there will always be people who put their survival first and the government's wishes second.

I have made the following point in my writings in 2015. It is a crucial point and I suspect that many readers did not pay attention.

In the Industrial Age, the hedging carrying cost[1] of an asset that is not your unit-of-account was deleterious[2] because of the fixed ROI usury economy that the high proportion of fixed capital investment required. Whereas in the Knowledge Age (as you have recognized and summarized in your recent upthread post) the ROI is driven by active (knowledge) investing and the hedging carrying cost is just another fixed cost that is irrelevant to the ROI from innovation (and usury winner-take-all, passive investing can't get any ROI at all, i.e. OROBTC's complaints). Thus the Knowledge Age can probably prioritize other qualities for money than unit-of-account. And as I pointed out above, instant digital convertibility mitigates the unit-of-exchange dominance problem, but doesn't entirely solve it especially if I am correct that Bitcoin is a Digital Kill Switch.

So yes I agree with your conclusion (yet retain reservations as noted), but for different and more specific, generative essence reasons.

I hope my post has helped you gain generative essence clarity.

[1] I mean hedging against your unit-of-account, the volatility of your asset which is not your unit-of-account.

[2] In the winner-take-all paradigm of usury accumulation (i.e. too big to fail, the larger never allowed to fail and shrink), any fraction of reduction in fixed interest ROI is intolerable due to effects of compounding.

I also think that, unfortunately, the mass will be too dumb to realize what's going on and will get trapped inside the cool, cashless society with centralized, state funded crypto, while a Bitcoin resistance survives as a parallel decentralized system of freedom. Hopefully all it does is putting Bitcoin up there and what ends up going global is BTC and now Fiatcoin.

Bitcoin ≅ Fiatcoin; or more accurately Bitcoin ∈ Fiatcoin; or most precisely P(Bitcoin ∩ Fiatcoin) > 0.5

See my recent posts.

[slapper]

I will happily invest if there is a Bitcoin or CryptoNote level whitepaper that can be vetted first by scholars worldwide. Do not need a single line of code released (unless the whitepaper needs some illustrations) that can be copy/pasted. Even ethereum has a good whitepaper (not that I support that project because of IPO/ICO).

[trollercoaster]

i'll invest too, i'm poor as shit but I see no other alternative.

[TPTB_need_war]

i'll invest too, i'm poor as shit but I see no other alternative.

Knowledge investing is the only way to go in terms of any excess capital that you can't deploy in your knowledge work/business.

Passive investing is dying (or diminishing). Armstrong argues that you can buy US stocks (and gold and other private assets, including perhaps corporate bonds) on this coming pullback (capitulation) low as we approach October 2015 (2015.75) launch of the sovereign debt crisis. The bond markets (at least in Europe) are moving to the short-end of the yield curve in a final bubble peak hooray for European bonds before the BIG BANG into a mad stampede out of European bonds into the US dollar, US stocks, and private assets. This is why I am saying the gold and BTC will make their final and lower lows this year.

I agree with Armstrong and the one counter-point I make is that investing in US stocks (and for example CoinCube's upthread idea of leveraging US bonds, then later Asian bonds) is that your investment gains are within the official system and I believe the masses are heading into a NWO system that will parasite on (expropriate) all wealth. Thus I have advocated investing some of your monetary capital in anonymous private assets to hedge (diversify) against this dire outcome (should it come to fruition).

One anonymous asset is gold, but I raised an objection based on the theory that gold can't be assuredly anonymously traded in the future.

Thus I have my goals set on anonymous crypto-currency and an anonymous internet. My comments on Monero:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1049048.msg11351385#msg11351385
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1049048.msg11328686#msg11328686
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1049048.msg11375837#msg11375837
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1049048.msg11317124#msg11317124
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1049048.msg11317826#msg11317826
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1049048.msg11326319#msg11326319
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1049048.msg11326463#msg11326463

[TPTB_need_war]

I will happily invest if there is a Bitcoin or CryptoNote level whitepaper that can be vetted first by scholars worldwide. Do not need a single line of code released (unless the whitepaper needs some illustrations) that can be copy/pasted. Even ethereum has a good whitepaper (not that I support that project because of IPO/ICO).

First of all, I made a public promise a long time ago (and reiterated several times I would) never to associate myself with nor promote an altcoin. I am going to keep that promise. If ever I work on something, my identity will not be explicitly on it. Thus indeed the whitepapers and designs have to be compelling on their own merit.

Vetting is important. Development happens in stages. Right now anything I might do is in the angel funding stage (and several months from launch at least), and not only would it slow me down too much to eloquently publish every detail in my head, it would also aid my competitors, and bog me down in (e.g. venture capital) process. Involving process and venture funding would enslave the coin to the powers-that-be. I would eat rice and salt to survive while coding rather than enslave my effort. But I probably destroyed my health in the past by being such a masochist and I will turn 50 years old in June (oh my a half century!), so hopefully I will receive necessary cash cushion so I can take better care of myself. I also have family obligations which consume a significant amount of cash every month (it is not only me and they live in the USA!). Recently I upgraded from my $80 a month "chicken cot" to a $350 a month fully furnished 4 bedroom house with inverter type aircons, hot shower, proper glass windows, and the point is living at or near Western standard. This has really boosted my performance. Angel investors get more coins than ICO investors for the same quantity of dollars invested, because they take on more risk and incomplete information (but they get the benefits of knowing who is the developer and they get to monitor progress monthly).

Let's discuss the distribution of coins.

Proof-of-work (PoW) mining can distribute coins in free market driven process, but this has the tradeoff of excluding those who don't have the hardware and the technical acumen, while sends much of the capital down the drain to electricity and it rewards those who can rent botnets or devise optimizations to the PoW hash algorithm. Thus PoW is not an entirely fair process of distribution unless perhaps there are mitigating preparations undertaken (see my CPU hash algorithm point below).

ICO/IPOs can also distribute coins in free market driven process, sends the capital to the developers instead of to electricity and hardware (purchases, leasing, theft). ICO appears to be superior in every way, except that it can't widely distribute coins in a decentralized process. And it might be illegal in some jurisdictions unless the proper filings have been made with the authorities, e.g. the SEC in the USA. Can you thus understand why any such developer MUST be anonymous?

My complaint against Ethereum's (and Skycoin's) ICO was they were selling vaporware. I think any ICO should only happen when the coin is finished and either launched or to be launched the instant the ICO completes.

My goal with PoW has always been a CPU hash algorithm that can compete with ASICs (because there is a small ASIC built into every modern CPU) and to encourage every household to mine on their PC during CPU idle cycles, because the household miner does not count his electricity cost. I believe I already achieved this hash algorithm in 2014 (after discarding my 2013 attempt, which was similar to Monero's hash algorithm and preceded my awareness of Bytecoin and Cryptonote). This can actually make the coin unprofitable to mine for mining farms. Mining farms are probably receiving loans from the banksters because the banksters wish to centralize mining. I have a multi-pronged design in mind to defeat them.

Your reactions are most welcome. I will read.

P.S. I would like links on the actual or summary of the pertinent SEC regulations if any one has them?

[trollercoaster]

I am willing to send the small amounts of BTC I hold your way if it would get the ball rolling, larger investors may join in after they see results?
your ideas are sensible to me, others may be too lazy to research your writings/ideas, hence they want a white paper.

[celestio]

I saw something interesting(They're basically unknowingly describing Cryptonote/Monero in the speech:

http://www.ny.frb.org/newsevents/speeches/2015/mca150508.html

A speech from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York discussing the pitfalls of eliminating cash, which is an idea that's becoming more and more popular among economists (because they want to force negative interest rates). From the speech:

Until there are equally secure electronic means of providing that anonymity, eliminating currency is not warranted.

It already exists.

[rpietila]

Let's discuss the distribution of coins.

The most optimal distribution in my understanding (see my hundreds of posts on the issue for the development process of the understanding) occurs naturally if the market is as well as possible unfettered by friction. The greatest visible source of friction are taxes and regulations, but they can't hinder the achievement of the natural distribution in the long run, just make it slower to achieve.

In practice the more important sources of "friction" (I am using the word figuratively to couple it with the previous) are 1) ignorance and 2) length of the thought process before investing. These two issues do not alter the optimal state, but are important for the growth of the tree.

As we know, the tree looks quite much a tree no matter in which stage of growth it is. The same can be observed in the distribution of cryptocurrencies regardless of their phase in lifecycle. They always have the roots, the stump, the trunk, branches and leaves. The premine or other dysfunctional start can make the tree very maimed in the beginning, but if it lives on, it will attain the functionality (the things are consequences one of another; if no functional distribution is achieved, it dies). The taxes and regulations make this process slower. But what are needed for the tree to grow, are the two numbered things.

1) You can only invest in what you know exists.

2) The typical length from awareness to committing money (in case all the factors are favorable) averages 24 months.

The optimal distribution is a circular definition and refers to the dynamic equilibrium where each market participant holds exactly the number of coins that satisfies his utility function. This tends to form a distribution where the largest owners own coins approximately in the power law ratio (if largest stash is 1, the next largest is approx. 1/2, third 1/3, 1000th 1/1000 etc. until about 3% of the total owners own half of it. The 97% own the other half and their proportions are governed by other functions, based on demographics and conditions. Whether debt is possible, also affects the distribution.

It is important not only to reach the distribution, but reach it in a way that the ones on top of the ability rank are also the ones on top of the pyramid. The combined "dev gets premine" & "early adopters get the coins cheaper" & "coins can be bought with existing money" approach is very popular in coins, and leads to this result better than the alternative approaches tested so far.

Its main problems come in the later stage with the hoped mass adoption. No coin yet has a viable scheme to expand the money supply fairly in connection with the extent of mass adoption. I am no tech guy and don't know how difficult it is to code in a P2P software. I am on the opinion that everyone so far has just tried to copy Bitcoin's early success with a declining yearly inflation, perceived to lead to exponentially growing coin value which becomes the mechanism to drive the adoption. I have written brilliant pieces in favor of this approach, but it does not mean it is necessarily copiable (if it was, by reductio ad absurdum, we would have a million blockchains and everyone would become rich - what we observe instead, is that even Bitcoin is struggling).

What has happened to my thinking over the time I've dedicated to the matter, I have become less purist and less dogmatic. When designing the economic engine for Crypto Kingdom, I conceived CKG, which is a 100% premined, 100% non-crypto. The distribution has mainly happened via direct sales against monetary value, and to a lesser degree via grants and donations. It has always had a 2-way market, which has severely limited the effectiveness (and thus the scope) of donations. If I donated too much to a person whose utility function would consequently go out-of-balance, he would feel inconvenient and balance it by selling to the market. The existence of a market is therefore a more important tenet than the exact mechanism of the early distribution.

From now on, the CKG money supply will expand in proportion to the time spent on playing the game. This will be a very equitable way of getting the new CKG to the hands of the people in small increments, and will in my hopes be the missing link for the wider distribution, which in the case of cryptocoins has typically been tried with faucets but with little success. The reason why I hope this will be a much better method is that the playing is a prerequisite for getting the value, so there is the equivalent amount of commitment to the value received. Theoretically, this trumps industrial mining, which is a commercial activity with little connection between profitability and commitment.

The key points in achieving success for a cryptocoin (or in CKG's case, even a non-cryptocoin) are thus:

1) Getting people to know of it.

2) Having the value proposition that makes them interested in getting in, which also typically takes 24 months if they need to divert their existing money to buy it. The coin needs to offer something interesting, or unique, or be fair. The more of these are present, the better.

3) Having the markets that make it possible for the coins to settle in hands who value them the most, and provide the means to cash out to other assets which are needed for cash flow needs.


What I don't regard to be key points, despite popular thinking:

1) Wallet software or ease of making transactions

2) Ways to spend the coin directly on goods and services

3) Trying to reach people who are not ready for it, forcing value down on their throat.


As outlined in the previous post, my stance is that the coin needs to be valuable and worthy of being a portfolio asset. To achieve this, it needs to have only minimum transactional utility. The stage of mass adoption and mass utility (50,000,000+ users worldwide) will be driven by direct usability, but we will never get there unless the coin first has intrinsic value and the buyers of last resort.

[TPTB_need_war]

Let's discuss the distribution of coins.

The most optimal distribution in my understanding (see my hundreds of posts on the issue for the development process of the understanding) occurs naturally if the market is as well as possible unfettered by friction. The greatest visible source of friction are taxes and regulations, but they can't hinder the achievement of the natural distribution in the long run, just make it slower to achieve.

In practice the more important sources of "friction" (I am using the word figuratively to couple it with the previous) are 1) ignorance and 2) length of the thought process before investing. These two issues do not alter the optimal state, but are important for the growth of the tree.

As we know, the tree looks quite much a tree no matter in which stage of growth it is. The same can be observed in the distribution of cryptocurrencies regardless of their phase in lifecycle. They always have the roots, the stump, the trunk, branches and leaves. The premine or other dysfunctional start can make the tree very maimed in the beginning, but if it lives on, it will attain the functionality (the things are consequences one of another; if no functional distribution is achieved, it dies). The taxes and regulations make this process slower. But what are needed for the tree to grow, are the two numbered things.

1) You can only invest in what you know exists.

2) The typical length from awareness to committing money (in case all the factors are favorable) averages 24 months.

The optimal distribution is a circular definition and refers to the dynamic equilibrium where each market participant holds exactly the number of coins that satisfies his utility function. This tends to form a distribution where the largest owners own coins approximately in the power law ratio (if largest stash is 1, the next largest is approx. 1/2, third 1/3, 1000th 1/1000 etc. until about 3% of the total owners own half of it. The 97% own the other half and their proportions are governed by other functions, based on demographics and conditions. Whether debt is possible, also affects the distribution.

It is important not only to reach the distribution, but reach it in a way that the ones on top of the ability rank are also the ones on top of the pyramid. The combined "dev gets premine" & "early adopters get the coins cheaper" & "coins can be bought with existing money" approach is very popular in coins, and leads to this result better than the alternative approaches tested so far.

Its main problems come in the later stage with the hoped mass adoption. No coin yet has a viable scheme to expand the money supply fairly in connection with the extent of mass adoption. I am no tech guy and don't know how difficult it is to code in a P2P software. I am on the opinion that everyone so far has just tried to copy Bitcoin's early success with a declining yearly inflation, perceived to lead to exponentially growing coin value which becomes the mechanism to drive the adoption. I have written brilliant pieces in favor of this approach, but it does not mean it is necessarily copiable (if it was, by reductio ad absurdum, we would have a million blockchains and everyone would become rich - what we observe instead, is that even Bitcoin is struggling).

What has happened to my thinking over the time I've dedicated to the matter, I have become less purist and less dogmatic. When designing the economic engine for Crypto Kingdom, I conceived CKG, which is a 100% premined, 100% non-crypto. The distribution has mainly happened via direct sales against monetary value, and to a lesser degree via grants and donations. It has always had a 2-way market, which has severely limited the effectiveness (and thus the scope) of donations. If I donated too much to a person whose utility function would consequently go out-of-balance, he would feel inconvenient and balance it by selling to the market. The existence of a market is therefore a more important tenet than the exact mechanism of the early distribution.

From now on, the CKG money supply will expand in proportion to the time spent on playing the game. This will be a very equitable way of getting the new CKG to the hands of the people in small increments, and will in my hopes be the missing link for the wider distribution, which in the case of cryptocoins has typically been tried with faucets but with little success. The reason why I hope this will be a much better method is that the playing is a prerequisite for getting the value, so there is the equivalent amount of commitment to the value received. Theoretically, this trumps industrial mining, which is a commercial activity with little connection between profitability and commitment.

The key points in achieving success for a cryptocoin (or in CKG's case, even a non-cryptocoin) are thus:

1) Getting people to know of it.

2) Having the value proposition that makes them interested in getting in, which also typically takes 24 months if they need to divert their existing money to buy it. The coin needs to offer something interesting, or unique, or be fair. The more of these are present, the better.

3) Having the markets that make it possible for the coins to settle in hands who value them the most, and provide the means to cash out to other assets which are needed for cash flow needs.


What I don't regard to be key points, despite popular thinking:

1) Wallet software or ease of making transactions

2) Ways to spend the coin directly on goods and services

3) Trying to reach people who are not ready for it, forcing value down on their throat.


As outlined in the previous post, my stance is that the coin needs to be valuable and worthy of being a portfolio asset. To achieve this, it needs to have only minimum transactional utility. The stage of mass adoption and mass utility (50,000,000+ users worldwide) will be driven by direct usability, but we will never get there unless the coin first has intrinsic value and the buyers of last resort.

My gratitude is expressed for sharing your extensive experience on this particular topic and expertise gained though it.

I agree with your decision to scale the money supply and reward coins w.r.t. to playing time accrued. This rewards the activity (and resultant network effects) that add the most value to the coin. As well it puts coins in the hands of those who have the most at stake other than a speculative vestment.

Ease of making transactions is a derivative need that is fulfilled by the market (of developers). The first need is market demand for the coin. This comes from speculative interest and any use of the coin that can't be done any other way. I assume that in your game, the only way to pay is your coin and not Bitcoin. I have a similar mechanism in my design for an altcoin, except the use case is not playing a game and is much more general (and a higher priority economic need) than playing a game. Thus you can say I superset your concept.  (Note I disagree with your point #2 in that if your exclusive use case is the coin can only be spent in your game, then getting them to pay for that service is critical to your strategy, i.e. many games allow to play for winner-take-all tokens or buy upgrades to the player's capabilities in the game such as more weapons, move lives, better avatar, etc).

Thus in my design the coins will be distributed most to those who need them for this generalized use case, same as for your game's coin but more general use case. And this is a decentralized, recycling distribution where coins are sold back into the market by those who need them less, then these coins are redistributed out to those who need them more. This is a decentralized process and I have a multi-prong design to prevent the usurers (banksters loaning money to ASIC farms) from capturing these coins and taking over the coin (as they appear to be doing with Bitcoin, I would quote expert research but I am too rushed to go dig up the links).

I agree with you that the initial speculators need to get into the coin in a size that is appropriate with the liquidity and risk profile at the time of launch. This should be a market-determined level. Thus I think it makes no sense to send this capital to hardware and electricity and much better to have an ICO (not a premine held exclusively by the developer which creates no branches on the tree) at launch that funds the ongoing development. From that point forward, the additional coins can be distributed to the users of the use case (via the profit-less mining I detailed in my prior post...yeah I know this is confusing and I am being purposefully obtuse on this detail until if ever I launched something).

So it seems we are essentially in complete agreement. I have in mind an exclusive use-case that is more general than a game. Note that doesn't mean the coin (of your game or my altcoin thought experiment) couldn't also be used to pay for general goods & services.

The remaining design question is should the money supply expansion decelerate (as in Bitcoin), accelerate as the use case that rewards coins increases, or be constant (note Bitcoin's is only constant when the rate of expansion reaches 0)?

In Bitcoin's case it was necessary to decelerate the money supply expansion because over time the mined coins are ending up mostly in the hands of ASIC farm usurers who need to sell the BTC to pay their debt payments. Whereas if the coins are ending up in the hands whose utility function is well matched, then the coins are rarely ending up on the market for new speculators to purchase. This could cause the price of the coin to rise too fast making the opportunity cost change too rapid, causing the utility function to be lost and coins to be sold. This is self-regulating I suppose.

What is wrong with the developer selling more coins periodically to fund more development for as long as this is done at higher and higher prices? It could even be specified in the protocol that those specific coins have to sold at certain price points (and even stipulated after certain duration). It seems to me that there are two targets for coin distribution:

1. Speculators a.k.a. investors.

2. Users of the coin (and as you say there needs to be a use case that can't be done by Bitcoin, i.e. I presume one can spend Bitcoin within your game and needs the game's tokens).

[dinofelis]

Money has no value if at least a super minority doesn't also use it as money.

I seldom need to correct you, but that one is actually a fallacy.

Commodities are thought to be selected as money because they were useful in trade and consequently people started to hoard them to match their present and future spending needs. While that might be possible, there is another mechanism that is even more valid.

The buyer of last resort. Any single entity with enough economic or coercive power can make anything money by making markets for it. The modern day examples are true not only with the various fiats, which are held together by the debt and tax payments, but also in voluntary interaction.

This is very true, and most underestimated in "theories about money".  Even gold and silver were not "free market products" as preferred intermediate goods, but were essentially driven by the mechanism of "buyer of last resort", by issuing coins to soldiers on one hand, and requiring taxes to be paid in coins, on the other hand.  On one hand, the demand of goods and services by coins (from soldiers) and the use of it with the knowledge to pay one's taxes with it on the other hand made it quickly into money.

[TPTB_need_war]

I understand Armstrong perhaps better any person on the forum. [...]

Thanks for sharing your views and detailing Armstrong's thoughts on this. I do not think the long term play I outlined differs from Armstrong's in terms of 'CONFIDENCE'. The flow from paper to physical and back again is all about confidence (confidence in the 'system').

The flow from European/Asian (Japan?) bonds into US stocks until 2017 is something I can imagine. This is typically described as the US having the cleanest 'dirty shirt'. However, this is a rush from one type of paper somewhere in the world to another type of paper in a different part of the world (the loose cannons of capital). It all takes place within the paper world.

What I am interested in is under which circumstances Armstrong sees Gold reaching $5,000 and what the stock market will be like when that happens. After all, this is a crucial premise of the paper vs physical theory. Whether Gold peaks at $2,000 or $20,000 is not interesting. It is only interesting to know at what level stocks are at that moment (will it reach the long term bottom between 1:1 and 2:1?). With Gold at the suggested peak of $5,000, the Dow should then be between 5,000-10,000, meaning a serious crash (no longer a correction) from current levels. Perhaps this is something Armstrong may see happening beyond 2017 in the bottoming process of 2018-2023. Is this the time period in which he sees also US bonds break down (resulting in the anticipated rush from paper - all paper - into physical)?

If (US) stocks were to explode higher into 2017 as a result of the public wave going into the private wave (in paper), levels in 2017 will be so high that a crash to Dow 5,000 (to reach Gold 1:1 parity) would be the biggest crash in stocks since 1929-1932. Somehow, I doubt this will happen with CBs on watch, ready to throw the kitchen sink at it if deemed necessary (and they will). In such environment, I do not see Gold peaking at $5,000 but at least a multiple of that. Trouble is, we do not know exactly sure what CBs are going to do (keep on printing or at some point just let it be).

Anyway, on the last theme (predicting CB behaviour), I think Gold provides protection in both scenarios. In case of excessive printing, Gold will protect in the long run and if CBs let the markets collapse, Gold will be a good hedge against banks and other financial institutions failing. In that respect, I find the idea of $250 trillion seeking a safe haven somewhat misleading. If the SHTF, much of that $250 trillion will prove to have been illusory: too much claims on wealth in the system.

By not focussing on stocks, at worst I can be a fool and at best, well protected.

In addition to CONFIDENCE, I forgot to mention the another key force of CAPITAL FLOWS that Armstrong's global (in space and time) computer model correlated. These international capital flows tend to move together, I presume not only because the factors driving them are identified by many investors but probably more so because capital tends to follow capital, i.e. investors will flow into that asset they see rising and dump the asset that is stagnant. Thus right now we private assets are waffling (and assert ready to take one more dive as moment increases on the last big rush back into safe haven sovereign bonds before October) while the short end the German yield curve is going bonkers. Some of you identified this shift by noting the Central Banks had to take drastic liquidity actions recently to counter major shifts in portfolios.

Armstrong's computer has numerous times (on various assets) targeted shifts or increasing volatility in June/July and September:

http://armstrongeconomics.com/archives/30539

Our computer is also projecting the same timing targets of June/July and then September.

http://armstrongeconomics.com/archives/30466

QUESTION: At Stuttgart you said gold coins would be one asset people could use against the banks and that there is some seasonal high. Could you explain that a bit more in detail.

Thank you. You deserved the standing ovation.

ANSWER: Yes, for the individual you can buy gold coins that are familiar to people rather than bars. That is for burying gold in the backyard.

As for the seasonality, June has often been the turning point in gold be it highs or lows. This time we should see a pop and then any decline will come in the fall. A weekly closing above 1239 should confirm the pop to the upside. The key resistance technically stands at 1309 area. Keep in mind that a rally in gold at this time would reflect perhaps a correction is shares and further send money into the short-end of the government debt curve.

http://armstrongeconomics.com/archives/30425

At this time, we see that there is the traditional risk of a correction in the share market that could set off the final stage of the bond bubble. Keep in mind this is not going to materialize in the long-end of bonds/bunds. What we are seeing is capital is not rushing into the 10 year or greater paper, it is rushing into the very short end. Rates there are negative as there is not enough short-term paper around to meet the demands to park cash.

We still see May – July – September as key targets for turning points. Whatever we end up with in September should produce the opposite trend immediately thereafter. As we now head into the last week of May/first week of June, we should start to see the choppy trends begin.

It is more likely than not that we should see a retest of support that will scare people and cause them to believe the stock market will crash. The high in the Dow still remains March 2nd at 18,335 level. Support begins at the 17,153 level and a daily closing beneath that level will signal the correction is then possible. The key support lies back at 16,540 level. A drop back to that area in the weeks and months ahead should convince everyone to buy more government paper and complete the final bubble top in government debt.

What is interesting is how stocks and other privates assets such as gold are not entirely aligned yet (which makes sense since stocks are mainstream and large capital liquid which gold and BTC are not), for Armstrong sees the possibility of a pop up in gold (and thus BTC also perhaps) this June/July as the stock market corrects now along with the kick off of the move into the short end of bonds by the early movers that is underway. Then later in the fall as the capital follows the early movers into the short end of bonds, gold and BTC will also get taken down to their final lows. This makes sense because initially in any safe haven shift gold moves up (remember the peak of silver at $21 in March 2008 which btw I called exactly to the day and sold but my dealer did not execute my order!) because the gold investors have their antennas up for obscure defaults in progress (evidence the upthread mentions of recent CB liquidity emergency actions). But then later the contagion forces investors to sell their asset of last resort to meet margin calls, thus gold gets taken down, e.g. August 2008.

So there is your likely timing on BTC. Hold for a pop back to $320 this summer, then sell waiting for the capitulation bottom in the fall. This pop is necessary to bring out the egos of the young fanboys[1] so they can give up their capital to us seasoned experienced elders. BTC won't have bottomed until there is pain, despair, and blood-in-the-streets, which is in my opinion below $100.

On the stocks-to-gold (stocks ÷ gold) ratio issue, the ratio will be heading down for non-USA stocks after October. For USA stocks, the ratio will not peak until 2017, then it will head down. And this is why the rocket shot in gold and BTC won't come until after 2017. It is an interesting question whether it will reach 1 or 2 again. Well at $5000 gold, a DJIA of 5000 or 10,000 would be quite the precipitous drop from the projected 30,000 to 40,000 peak in 2017 that Armstrong's model is stating may be possible. As I've said, the 2018 - 2024 period is going to be scorched earth chaos. War is very likely late in 2017 as the USA peaks and Armstrong's War Cycle model is also pointing to that time. As well his pandemic model is also pointing to the possibility of pandemic at that time (his theory being a repeat of how the Black Death was introduced to Europe by invading armies throwing diseased bodies over the walls in Ukraine, this time the war in Europe may be fought by mercenaries and these mercenaries will carry the disease into Europe).

http://armstrongeconomics.com/archives/30499

This is why Brussels is now calling for a European Army. That will be their power and sending Greek troops into Germany will prevent the troops from siding with the people. This is also why there is a mad rush to create robots for war. They have no emotions and cannot be turned. Government understands their weak-link for throughout history it has always been the loyalty of the troops.

On the question of whether to hold gold (or cypto) instead of USA stocks, it seems to make sense. Both will be rising together from October forward, but USA stocks will peak in 2017 after a double or at most a triple (if you buy the coming correction bottom), and if gold and BTC bottom under $1000 and $150 respectively then I doubt they won't also make doubles or more by 2017. And the additional problem with investing in stocks is they are not anonymous and thus with the coming capital controls it might be possible you can not sell or you are taxed really insanely if you do sell. My stance is about now to start moving capital off the grid where gains will not be known to the bankrupt socialism which will be expropriating your gains with rising taxes.

[1]	Always fascinates me when older intelligent people, loose their acquired wisdom, at the very point they disappear up their own proverbial backside. You are talking to yourself, TPTB. Have a fine n dandy day.

[TPTB_need_war]

Armstrong's sources say nationalization of banking (and retirements) is (are) coming.

http://armstrongeconomics.com/archives/30472

Comment From a Banker in Asia

COMMENT: The distinction between relationship and transactional is so compelling and explains my own puzzlement in dealing with ‘relationship’ managers.In Asia they have to sell structured products — even now,after 2008 — or be fired.They are under enormous pressure and cannot focus upon anything else so the word ‘relationship’ is a misnomer. The staff turnover is enormous.
Good fortune attend you in Warsaw !
Bill

REPLY: This is really wiping out banking as we once knew it  The solution if this is still fractional banking is the nationalization of banks. This is the rumblings coming from key sources behind the curtain. This is getting very scary. Once government seized banking, then they can prevent you from buying or selling by just blocking your accounts or clean them out at will. This is the battle ground between humanity and the coming authoritarian age. I do not know what more I can do. My condolences to those under 40. At least I have an expiration date to save my ass from this world they are determined to create. It just doesn’t have to be this way. We do have a choice.

http://armstrongeconomics.com/archives/29835

The Crisis in Democracy – Debt & Electronic Money

COMMENT:

Hi Marty,

Would you be able to clarify the risks with having just an electronic money system – it would seem that any electronic system would be vulnerable to viruses, bugs, hacking, and other collapse. Also a completely electronic system would possibly be a tool of a tyrannical government simply to shut dissenters down.
Many thanks for your conned work.
Andrew

ANSWER: This is my concern. Take the proposal in Iceland, where credit decisions are to be taken from banks and given to the government, using the claim that fractional banking creates chaos. It was not the fractional banking, but the selling of structured products that blew up, which I have called transactional banking.

If we merge these two factors, you can see that we are looking at a nationalization of money and banking. This will lead to one small step towards full authoritarian power. This is the end of Western Civilization and those in power are spying on everyone because they are trying to hold power precisely as Stalin in Russia.

http://armstrongeconomics.com/archives/30480

Why are governments rushing to eliminate cash? During previous recoveries following the recessionary declines from the peaks in the Economic Confidence Model, the central banks were able to build up their credibility and ammunition so to speak by raising interest rates during the recovery. This time, ever since we began moving toward Transactional Banking with the repeal of Glass Steagall in 1999, banks have looked at profits rather than their role within the economic landscape. They shifted to structuring products and no longer was there any relationship with the client. This reduced capital formation for it has been followed by rising unemployment among the youth and/or their inability to find jobs within their fields of study. The VELOCITY of money peaked with our ECM 1998.55 turning point from which we warned of the pending crash in Russia.

...This current mild recovery in the USA has been shallow at best and as the rest of the world declines still from the 2007.15 high with a target low in 2020, the Federal Reserve has been unable to raise interest rates sufficiently to demonstrate any recovery for the spreads at the banks between bid and ask for money is also at historical highs. Banks will give secured car loans at around 4% while their cost of funds is really 0%. This is the widest spread between bid and ask since the Panic of 1899.

We face a frightening collapse in the VELOCITY of money and all this talk of eliminating cash is in part due to the rising hoarding of cash by households both in the USA and Europe. This is a major problem for the central banks have also lost control to be able to stimulate anything.The loss of traditional stimulus ability by the central banks is now threatening the nationalization of banks be it directly, or indirectly. We face a cliff that government refuses to acknowledge and their solution will be to grab more power – never reform.

http://armstrongeconomics.com/archives/30499

That is what we must understand and we must understand that private assets are the means to survive – not pensions or government bonds. Eliminating cash is their way to force people into banks and prevent a bank-run. That will end in the total authoritarian government for you will not be allowed to buy or sell except without the grace of government.

Armstrong has placed all his hope on a political solution, because he understands gold can no longer function as it used to in the past.

http://armstrongeconomics.com/archives/30499

Perhaps this time we can put pressure for political change in eliminating debts and this viscous cycle of Sovereign Debt Defaults that destroy society. We can prepare for our individual survival by comprehending the nature of the beast. As was discussed in the session in Warsaw, it is true gold is no longer the savior since we cannot hop on a plane with a briefcase full of gold and seek a new start. Gold’s role may be local and in an underground economy, but make no mistake about that, government is well aware of that role as well.

Governments are robbing anything travelers might have these days. There were even signs in Poland warning if you have more than €10,000 in cash or “assets” when traveling it was illegal. They will look for jewelry, stocks, gold, or diamonds. Anything they deem of value they can confiscate.

http://armstrongeconomics.com/archives/30549

More and more details keep surfacing about the corruption of the Clintons. The biggest contributors to Hillary are Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan, and Citibank for after all it was the Clintons who repealed Glass Steagall enabling transactional banking that is destroying the world economy.

The view of Hillary from outside the USA is much more critical than the press in the USA who want her regardless of how much she pockets or helps the banks against the people and line their pockets. The Daily Mail in Britain is reporting that the overlap between the donors to the “Clinton Foundation” and the countries Hillary dealt with as Secretary of State is by no means coincidental. No doubt she erased her emails to cover up these type of deals.

This is the peak in government corruption for 2015.75. Will the confidence in government just meltdown in time for the 2016 election? This is possible with the collapse in liquidity for when the markets turn down, they should move more in a flash-crash formation when it comes to debt. Running to the private sector may be the only security we have left.

Armstrong doesn't believe crypto-currency can resist the power of government.

http://armstrongeconomics.com/archives/30499

This is a new age of authoritarianism and is not ending nicely. The idea of crypto-currencies is also rather foolish for nothing can compete against a government that is ruthless and broke. They have the guns and then tanks and will use them against the people. Our hope is to identify the problem and spread the word. Yeltsin stood on the tanks in Russia and asked the troops not to fire on their own people. If the pawns of government refuse to massacre their own people, then we can win. It is critical to understand that police and military will become the tool for both sides.

Armstrong is correct about gold for the same reason he is incorrect about crypto-currency — entropy.

Gold is losing entropic possibilities because the people don't want to use it for trade because it can't be spent electronically. The internet changed our expectations of efficiency of commerce and this has reduced the entropy of gold and that is why you will throw your gold into the streets as a useless relic because you will have no way to sell it except at a regulated dealer (black markets for it will disappear because there is no decentralized demand for it any more) which the government will regulate to tax and expropriate your gold from you. As I had pointed out in 2010, if your gold appreciates by 500%, then the capital gains tax of 28% (in the USA) means you give 23% of your ounces to the government. And expect tax rates to rise egregiously.

Whereas, crypto-currency is gaining network efforts thus entropic possibilities. I commented on this several times as follows...but realize Bitcoin is moving towards centralization and thus it will be the government controlled crypto-coin. An altcoin will have to provide the black market function that bearer cash used to.

Erdogan, they can't take away the internet entirely as you point out. Because there is too much entropy (a.k.a. life) enabled by the network effects. In short, a million people will be brainstorming how to route around the cancer and reestablish their networked contacts. The network is inherently distributed. Unlike the political morass and central banking which is inherently centralizing.

THX 1138, the Knowledge Age is not just about coding logic. It is about any creative activity that can't be automated. The Knowledge Age is about eliminating the repetitive drudgery so humans can focus on what they do best, which is creativity.

The pathway forward is obvious. The decentralized network can't be stopped by the centralized morass. No the Knowledge Age mavericks will not join the centralized morass! Why the hell would we join their failure. The one-world NWO morass will end up annihilating itself and anyone who depends on it.

As for "running out of time", I agree in some aspects (e.g. Bitcoin gaining a lot of mindshare, difficult to replace or overcome), but I also think the worst of what is coming won't kick in until after 2016. We have some time yet, if someone created something that was sufficiently innovative and generated significant market excitement.

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Physics & math proof internet unstoppable, uncontrollable
Date:    Mon, April 27, 2015 10:54 pm
To:      "Armstrong Economics" <armstrongeconomics@gmail.com>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


It didn't take me 2 hours. Once my mind was fresh, it took me 5 minutes to figure out how to refute this.

I was going to come at this more abstractly explaining why matter is conserved so that the universe doesn't have an edge nor collapse to infinitesimal point and then explain that the only degree-of-freedom for a non-static (non-existent) universe is increasing entropy, but let's save that for the future essay where I can tear to shreds CoinCube's popularized notion of entropy as some baseline that order draws from. For the moment I'd rather make my point more comprehensible and concise.

The meeting of the minds synergizes and much more complex possibilities spawn (new information content is spawned serendipitous that couldn't be predicted a priori by the prior information content and that is a key difference between "random" generators regurgitating information content from the environment).

What you are describing is in essence the higher ordered potential energy gathered via the search through aka harvesting of entropy. It is not entropy itself.

Reed's law says the potential increases 2^N - N - 1 thus with exponential complexity[1]. Multifurcating networks and multiplexing routers means the energy cost to provide available connection between N nodes only increases with polynomial or subexponential complexity[1]. The virtual IP network is a fully connected mesh topology, but the physical network is hub-and-spoke a.k.a. hybrid star plus bus[2] (this is gained via efficiency).

Conservation of Energy thus makes your statement impossible. ▮Q.E.D.

That slam dunks also my point about the general definition of efficiency.


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_complexity_theory#Important_complexity_classes
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_complexity#Sub-exponential_time

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_topology


P.S. this is why the internet has radically changed the economics of the universe and is ushering in the Knowledge Age. The powers-that-be can not shut off this entropic force. Impossible. Nature will route around them. Raise your fist Knowledge age people, we win. No chance we fail.

This so called law is obviously and intuitively wrong. It fails to acknowledge limits on the number of inbound and outbound connections a member in a group-forming network can manage. The actual maximum-value structure is much sparser than Reed's guesstimate would suggest.

Hey technological dunce, servers don't have a Dunbar limit. Even users of P2P don't have to be limited by their Dunbar limit, because P2P is automated (which is probably why Bitcoin is tracking Metcalf's law).

My server for new website is accepting all connection requests to it and doesn't need to ask me first. Duh!

While it is true that Reed's law doesn't apply to all the users on the internet because they don't all connect with each other over the internet (i.e. P2P is not used yet by all users, although I plan to change that!), the article you cited admits that Reed stipulated that his law only applied to groups wherein all the users did interact with each other.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/networks/metcalfes-law-is-wrong

At the other extreme, exponential--that is, 2ⁿ--growth, has been called Reed's Law, in honor of computer networking and software pioneer David P. Reed. Reed proposed that the value of networks that allow the formation of groups, such as AOL's chat rooms or Yahoo's mailing lists, grows proportionally with 2ⁿ.

If we limit my proof to only servers, we still find that my math about relative complexity applies — the costs of the connections is growing slower than the complexity value of the virtual IP network. This is because the network self-organizes into a hierarchical hub-and-spoke topology that is more efficient than a fully connected mesh. Thus the entropy is grower faster than the potential energy can according to the Conservation of Energy, and this gain is coming from efficiency of topology. You can quibble about the exact model of the growth of the virtual IP network, but you will never be able to argue that is not growing at a greater complexity scale than the cost of the physical network.

Although you won't admit it you are essentially trying to prove the second law of thermodynamics is wrong. You have no chance of success.  If you insist on trying you need to make the argument using the math of thermodynamics not business school guesswork.

Don't flatter yourself. I was already well aware that you would think that and it is obvious why you would think that. Really I have your thinking all mapped out already. I know why you are wrong. I was going to address that fundamental math in the more abstract essay. Nevertheless the math above is irrefutable.

Start searching now for your mistake instead of assuming incorrectly and egotistically presuming that my thought process was not exhaustive (when have I ever demonstrated myopia?! never!), and see if you can figure it out before I tell you.

You were correct before when you agreed with me that some top down constraints are needed to ensure convergence. You should return to your prior and correct insight.

The network is free market, self-organizing into a plurarity of top-down managed mesh or bus connected hubs which multifurcate (spoke topology) to the network ends.

I am arguing against a monopoly on (force) top-down management, because it has an entropy approaching 0. Someday you will get this distinction into your hard head.

AnonyMint I can tell you only spent 5 minutes on this.

It is clear you do not have the time currently to do this topic justice. I am content to leave the matter in dispute. Let's return to it later when you can give it more attention.

Flattering your ignorance with platitudes is noise. You'd be wiser to stop interjecting those incorrect barbs and stick to futilely, incorrectly arguing the facts.

In your stubborn ignorance, you are going to miss a huge opportunity to become a $billionaire. You are like the politically correct, mainstream educated fools who told Columbus not to sail because the world is flat.

Your disingenuous behavior is causing me to not ever want to be your friend in future, even after you finally realize I am correct. All the apologies you could make won't erase the memory I will have of how you prefer disingenuous ego (you appear to be so worried about your reputation as if that is your productive value in society whereas I shred my reputation every damn day because my value to society is actual production and pursuit of truth, ego be damned!) over intellectual pursuit of truth. If you were sincere, you would have at least explored the point I make above. It is certainly obvious to someone of your intellect. Or are you really that myopic? Well I have had a few indications that you are that myopic, such as the rash investment decision, etc.. So perhaps this isn't insincerety but rather just a mental handicap? Then I guess I should be empathetic.

Although you won't admit it you are essentially trying to prove the second law of thermodynamics is wrong. You have no chance of success.  If you insist on trying you need to make the argument using the math of thermodynamics not business school guesswork.

Don't flatter yourself. I was already well aware that you would think that and it is obvious why you would think that. Really I have your thinking all mapped out already. I know why you are wrong. I was going to address that fundamental math in the more abstract essay. Nevertheless the math above is irrefutable.

Start searching now for your mistake instead of assuming incorrectly and egotistically presuming that my thought process was not exhaustive (when have I ever demonstrated myopia?! never!), and see if you can figure it out before I tell you.

Your mistake is you are conflating energy and entropy.

It is true that a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd kind violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It is not possible to attain 100% efficiency in a thermal transfer process because we would need an infinite reservoir (heat sink) of absolute 0 temperature internally and an infinite external ambient environment (heat source) of infinite temperature.

What is being considered with the Conservation of Energy in the First Law of Thermodynamics and the transfer of Heat in the Second Law of Thermodynamics is the fact that the matter of the universe is constant. I was going to go more abstractly into what the matter of the universe is, because I have unifying theory on that which I think will be breakthrough. But suffice it to say that the matter of the universe does not increase nor decrease. Btw, my future elucidation will explain why this is required else the universe would need to have a fixed, absolute origin and edge and thus could not exist (would collapse into an infinitesimal point), but that is not elucidation is not necessary for the point we need to discuss now.

Whereas the entropy, i.e. the probabilistic degrees-of-freedom organization of the matter, of the universe is not constant and is always increasing. This is the entropic force and the other forces and macroscopic effects emerge from it, e.g. gravity emerges from the entropic force. See the matter of the universe is uninteresting. It doesn't cause any thing to happen. It is the organization of the matter that defines the various macroscopic effects, such as potential energy, kinetic energy, heat, etc..

The Second Law tells us that entropy is always created by any thermodynamic process (except for idealized reversible processes which never occur in nature).

Thus the entropy created by the internet which exceeds the potential energy that can be created by the work done of building the physical internet, is an increase in efficiency above 100%. But that > 100% efficiency is not in terms of energy, but rather in terms of entropy. Thus it does not violate the Conservation of Energy.

Measuring efficiency in terms of energy is myopic, because for example I can achieve near to 100% efficiency for transferring energy from reservoir (e.g. battery) to another but that hasn't achieved anything useful.

The useful work as far as nature is concerned are the increases in entropy. Nature's entire holistic motivation is increasing entropy.

Thus the only definition for efficiency which has any consistently, holistic meaning is the ratio of entropy increase.

Thus (entropic) perpetual motions machines do exist! They are called Life a.k.a. nature.

Think of the thyroid gland.

First scientists said it was a trivial side organ.

Then it was sort of important.

Now almost every biochemical process can be traced back to some influence from the thyroid and related organs.

The body is stunningly complex, and even most general practitioners are only scratching the surface.

Your subordination of entropy to a 2nd class citizen of physics and nature is abomination and travesty of science and philosophical inquiry.

In line with your asteroid example above unrestrained anarchy can lead to megadeath in other ways. As we proceed into the knowledge age the resources required to develop and deploy nuclear, chemical, and biological attacks will continue to decline. At some point it may be possible for a single individual to possess the destructive potential our nation states have today. Human nature requires us to develop and enforce significant controls around such technology. Terrorism is a currently a bogeyman used to further state control. That may not always be the case.

The only way the State could stop individuals from acquiring and using such technology would be to track everything everyone does. Choke points of yore only (e.g. export restrictions on certain technology) worked before the internet. The cat is already out of the box and the only way to put it back in, is to track everything everyone does. That Orwellian State would mean certain extinction of the human race because centralization of power corrupts absolutely and there will be no way to break out of it until hits 0 (i.e. cancer entirely killed the host).

The logic you expressed appears to me to be certifiably insane because...

All you have provided are the choice between two scenarios which are both human extinction paths.

My gosh. Sociopath much? Why not contemplate a more rosy possibility?

Of course anarchy (a.k.a. the free market) would never end up with the outcome you illogically fear. Because (unlike a perfectly centralized system which has 0 entropy), the entropy of the free market is higher (not 0) and thus it has a higher implied equilibrium state (above 0).

Can't you PERCEIVE (i.e. envision) that the free market will always react by providing self-defense technology? For example, technology to leave planet Earth if necessary, technology to live underground, and remote sensing (this exists already) technology sniff out certain chemical compositions in a certain proximity. Etc, etc, etc.

This perfectly exemplifies why those who lack PERCEPTION and are too much JUDGING, will prefer insane (absurd) low entropy choices.

http://blog.mpettis.com/2015/02/when-do-we-decide-that-europe-must-restructure-much-of-its-debt/#comment-123414

Suvy I wrote CoolPage in 1998 from Nipa Hut in a squalor community in Mindanao. I was infested with weekly bouts of Giardia, had a karaoke blasting in my ear 16 x 7, I'd turn my head and my underwear and spoon would be gone. I reached the low of eating only rice because I had run out of funds and none of my boomer relatives would[n't] loan me even $100 because they wanted to punish me for my decision to go international and rustic.

Sorry there is internet access in most of of the world now. There are some 3 billion at least on the internet by most estimates. Up from a 100 million back when I launched CoolPage. And to think I had a million users and thus 1% of the internet, all coming from a Nipa Hut in squalor.

Sorry you are not making any sense. You need to travel outside the USA more to lose your myopia.

Suvy, when I first explored Manila in 1991 (just after Mt. Pinatubo erupted), I noticed all these smoky, smoldering shantytowns, e.g. tiny abodes in along river banks constructed of scrap materials, and I was wondering where all these sharped dressed professionals strolling by were living. Someone informed me they live in those cardboard shacks with only crawl space. If you saw them at the office you would have never known.

It was quite an eye opener and attitude adjustment for a 26 year old westerner.

[OROBTC]

...

Two more ideas vs. "Economic Totalitarianism" for beginners...

1)  I bought BTC from a Lamassu ATM here in NYC (we are on a visit).  I waited my turn behind two drug dealers (hey, I do NOT KNOW if they were drug dealers), the machine worked fine, the BTC are off to be mixed and sent on to their ultimate destinations.  No apparent cameras, no ID needed, no fingerprints/handprints.  Looked pretty anonymous!  Machine was in "Sonny's Grocery" at about 757 10th Ave (west side of the avenue) in Manhattan.  Stiff 12% or so premium to BTC "spot".

2)  I also bought a "semi-collectible" coin.  An MS-70 Proof Pt Eagle (slabbed).  Certain slabbed bullion coins (as it turns out) have premia WAY over "spot".  I am trying to get an idea of how these kinds of coins will fare..., in an economy that is growing or "acceptable", such a coin is worth little in a TEOTWAWKI...  But, the very rich collect high-end stuff, I am now thinking about stuff that RICH GUYS will want, even bit-billionaires...  High-end art (perhaps in a bubble now though) is also proven as to rising in value, on the average.

[username18333]

Machine worked fine, the BTC are off to be mixed and sent on to their ultimate destinations.

Which organization "mixed" (OROBTC) them for you? (E.g., NSA, GCGQ, etc.)

[OROBTC]

...



Hey, username18333, I'll just wait for a letter from them to let me know.

Hey, they're from the government, and they're there to help.  Hey, Ronald Reagan himself sort-of said the opposite...

[trollercoaster]

U.S crypto exchanges now forcing customers to i.d themselves or have funds frozen.

[username18333]

I'll just wait for a letter from them to let me know.

If they "let [you] know" (OROBTC), they won't compromise the operation in the process.

[TPTB_need_war]

I may have just one last thing under this username to say to those who are fighting for Bitcoin.

You have blood on your hands; justified by your foolish greed wherein you tell yourselves lies to wish away the clear writing on the wall.

Bitcoin and any PoW coin is doomed to mining take over by NWO coincident with the means to sell fully opaque heat appliances to the masses who do not give a fuck about their enslavement with a NWO coin. If you can't reason it out, show no gratitude to someone who could elucidate it to you, then you deserve your ignorant fate.

I am not concerned. I am hyper pissed off at you guys that you do not care that the world will be turned into a 1984 in your lifetime.

I am so pissed off at you, I will not rest until I pummel you and your NWO coin. In what way? Because your NWO coin is a wealth expropriation plan. It is a monopoly plan on mining to cartels and oligarchs. Top-down control malfunctions, restricts opportunities, kills network efforts, under performs, overcharges, and in general is a bankruptcy directed paradigm.

How dare you characterize my discussion in this thread as an echo chamber. You should be ashamed of yourselves, but guys like you only learn the hard way of being separated from your capital so that you can't repeat your juvenile destructive shit again.

I will get the last and very rich laugh.

[username18333]

Because your NWO coin is a wealth expropriation plan. It is a monopoly plan on mining to cartels and oligarchs. Top-down control malfunctions, restricts opportunities, kills network efforts, under performs, overcharges, and in general is a bankruptcy directed paradigm.

What system is in place to prevent individuals from issuing/spending more money than they earn (in the past or future?)

In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes.

[trollercoaster]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3066687/Our-goal-EU-army-says-Germany-s-defence-chief-Fears-country-commission-chief-s-call-force-taken-seriously-world-stage.html

who better to use as eu policy enforcers than foreign unsympathetic troops.