No Money Exists Without the Majority

[jackjack]

No because we can't reverse time and go back and encode (load into the model) the infinite entropy from the past and because due the Heisenberg (uncertainty) principle reality is a moving target that has changed as soon as any entity does anything including observe it.

Imagine a lot of artificial brains working
 say 1000x times faster than "natural" human's brain. What gives ?

Something scary
But it started, Google X Lab

[1715581236]

1715581236

[1715581236]

1715581236

[1715581236]

1715581236

[AnonyMint]

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4946&cpage=1#comment-402910

Every human brain is unique because of the infinite input entropy from evolution.

INFINITE input entropy? That seems highly improbable. A quick google search suggests that our DNA encodes up to about 1.5Gb worth of information so practically evolution will fall way short of “infinite” entropy without some serious refactors to our base code.

@JonCB:
Who has proven that DNA is the extent of the information content in our biological history and future?

A digital signature of a newspaper clipping or archaeological evidence can prove existence after a point in time, but no evidence can disprove all possibility of existence before a point in time. History is the (potentially multiple orthogonal) reality (ies) of the (orthogonal perspectives of) observers.

Considering that information content, entropy, and disorder mean the degrees-of-freedom a.k.a. independent possibilities, a finite biological information content would mean given a large enough population, then two or more humans would be entirely identical in terms of evolutionary impact. I posit that environment plays a role in evolution, and is not be fully determined by DNA. I posit that the environment has infinite entropy, because no one can comprehend what the extent of the universe would mean (we can never get there in any current theories unless we move faster than the speed-of-light), even the second law of thermodynamics says entropy trends to maximum.

I do have a visualization of the infinite extent of the universe; it is maximally disordered, i.e. the universe wraps back onto itself in the degrees-of-freedom domain, which I suppose may explain black holes. I had pointed out in the past that Erik Verlinde was able to mathematically derive the gravitation force from the qualities of the entropic force at the event horizon of the black hole.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4946&cpage=1#comment-402911

@me:

> the universe wraps back onto itself in the degrees-of-freedom domain

That should be plural domains.

I discovered that we can model an infinite extent of types (models) with either an inductive function from an unspecified origin towards an unbounded future, or with a co-inductive function from an unbounded past towards an unspecified final end.

In an inductive type system (e.g. most programming languages), the top type is never fully specified since it is the logical conjunction on all future types (and the disjunction of all semantics of those types) that will be created (and the bottom type can't be instantiated yet is inhabited by the conjunction of the semantics of all types). In a co-inductive type system (e.g. Haskell), the bottom type is never fully specified since it is the logical disjunction on all future types (and the conjunction of all semantics of those types) that will be created (and the top type can't be instantiated yet is inhabited by the disjunction of the semantics of all types).

Thus if we model our universe inductively with an unbounded future, there exists a mathematical dual model that is co-inductive with an unbounded past. So the degrees-of-freedom are unbounded in both origin and future given the duality of induction and co-induction.

[digitalindustry]

read parts of...

so is it pro crypto-coins or against crypto-coins?

^

oh the internet.

: D

[digitalindustry]

ok now i'm actually going to read it - later.....

[BadBitcoin (James Sutton)]

Faster in computation speed has nothing to do with duration in fitness during diversity over time.

Let's assume for a moment, that your theory
 "to have intellect we need to start from
 large portion of entropy injected into proto-brain and only then ..." is true in all aspects.
Why do you think, that quantity of entropy we need is so huge ? Any proof ?

My point was : if we can start from proto-brain
 filled with relatively modest amount of entropy , and then "spawn" it and "simulate"
 evolution in parallel and with speed 1000x times more than we have achieved for humans...
This will be enough for creation AI with potential well over humans' intellect.

thats exactly what I was hypothesising, a genetic algorithim that continuously evolves not only to better design itself, but to specifically tackle individual problems that are given to it, say you ask it to innovate a new kind of quantum tunneling protocol.

Initially the brain you use is the simplest building block possible, however as the brains mutate, a pattern emerges, and the most prolific and constructive "brains" become the parents of the latest generation of brains, this can continue until an optimal value is reached.

The problem with this approach is it does require something of the author, a series metrics that can be used to compare capabilities, however this approach is as close to optimal in solving almost any problem that I cannot forsee it not working just as well for innovating AI

[AnonyMint]

Faster in computation speed has nothing to do with duration in fitness during diversity over time.

filled with relatively modest amount of entropy , and then "spawn" it and "simulate"

thats exactly what I was hypothesising, a genetic algorithim that continuously evolves not only to better design itself

Problem is that the input entropy doesn't increase faster than evolution. We can't accelerate the process of the reproducing pre-existing diversity from the infinite history of adaption. Just the same as we can't go backwards in time. See my prior post on some math model about that.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4946&cpage=1#comment-402987

@Jessica Boxer:

Brains encode a lot more than what comes from the DNA, they encode the experience of a human life. Nonetheless, you are right it is far from infinite.

That information is not lost when we die and is it not only recorded in the DNA, but also stored in the perpetual, living network (which isn't just here on earth). I wrote down the mathematical model which shows that the model of an infinite future, is the dual of the model of an infinite past (when measured in the entropy domain, not time). I am positing it is impossible to have an infinite future without an infinite past. The proof of this is as I already stated, that if the input entropy is finite then the future is eventually duplicitous and not infinite. Now please go find the edge of the universe for me so you can prove our future is finite. And I am not just talking about a 3D edge, but rather the edge where entropy (# of independent possibilities) does not continue increasing.

However, I don’t agree that “singularity” scenarios are unrealistic, partly because there is not one such scenario.

Kurzweil's technological Singularity is the (in my opinion ridiculous) claim that computers will be as or more innovative than humans.

In a sense, singularity really just means a point in future beyond our capacity to make any reasonable predictions. That I am sure we will come to. However, the need for human computer replacement is weaker than that — it is the ability to solve engineering problems better than humans. Computers already do that in many areas already, and are continuing to do more and more.

Agreed and that will appear to be something like a technological singularity to the laymen (who will be unemployed), akin to Clarke's statement-- any sufficiently advanced technology appears to be magic.

Things that used to be considered beyond the capability of machines are regularly taken over, and will continue to do so for a long time, eating up the information economy.

And all who pray to Malthus (not implying that is what you meant) will be missing the boat to the greater employment and productivity as human innovation is accelerated by these smarter computers.

[fenican]

Long read.  I took from it that I should put all my wealth in Apple stock.  Done!

Thanks

[xan_The_Dragon]

read parts of...

so is it pro crypto-coins or against crypto-coins?

It is not against crypto-coins in terms of advancing digital money for society. That will probably happen and efficiencies can probably be gained.

It is against the concept that crypto-coins will subvert the power elite and socialism and provide some lasting individual freedom in the way that is gained from truly "personal empowerment technology, e.g. portable energy-dense compact carbon fuels, the automobile, telephone, personal computer, internet, the open source software model, and coming 3D printers.".

The reason being that no currency will ever exist that isn't subject to control by the majority, as explained in the OP. There is even a technical justification in the OP.

Whereas, true personal empowerment technologies (such as the examples provided above) enable routing around facets of control of the majority.

wtf http://printin3d.com/

[xan_The_Dragon]

http://www.random.org/
uses atmospheric noise to produce random numbers use this to insert randomness

[AnonyMint]

Long read.  I took from it that I should put all my wealth in Apple stock.  Done!

Thanks

Not a good idea:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4946&cpage=1#comment-401478

[Etlase2]

We technologists have looked deeply for an alternative to Bitcoin, that would eliminate its 51% attack vulnerability, and have concluded with the 51% Rule of Decentralized Agreement, which implies that no decentralized digital currency will ever be able to (sustain an) escape from the desires of the majority of society.

There will never exist a form of highly fungible money (not gold, fiat, nor digital currencies) that will escape from the desires of the majority of society.

It seems to me as if you are agreeing with my point about currency clones and how if they are incentivized with a pyramid-like distribution, they can only be the norm rather than the exception. Even with perpetual debasement, no algorithm or fixed measure can determine the needs of the "51%".

The desires of the majority of society will always migrate towards boom and bust socialism.

I disagree with this point. Booming and busting is a factor that I believe is heavily exacerbated by a manipulated economy. While the technology cycle may be at the heart of the matter, it is the bankers and/or governments that extract a vast amount of the new wealth and freedom derived from technological/knowledge advancement primarily for themselves. Then they redistribute it in ways that centralize power within the government and wealthy.

The only way to fund everything is widespread debt and unfunded future promises, i.e. funding by obfuscating mutual self-destruction in debt and misallocation (causing destruction) of human capital.

I have at a few different times mentioned how I believe a currency that disincentivizes creating debt or accepting debt-notes would allow for new types of power structures to emerge. For example, an Open Business where new knowledge acquisition is funded by the people who want the knowledge. The easiest example is Open Pharmaceuticals--where people pay to have research done for targeted diseases. Then the Open Business recoups its costs and repays investors, perhaps saving some for new directions of research (or to help pay for failures), and then releases the knowledge for all. No scientists have been made billionaires by contributing to pharmaceutical research and development, so their effect on this equation would remain relatively unchanged. The knowledge-producers are rarely the ones that see the benefit. You seem to have proposed a similar idea but in regards to software.

Thus what gold standard proponents don't understand is that the insoluble political power vacuum that gives rise to booms and busts does not exist nor derive from the form of money used, but rather exists naturally in every society as explained above. The malfeasance of the leaders is not the source of the problem either, rather exist as a manifestation of the insoluble political power vacuum described above. So changing the form of money used or regulating or removing the corrupt leaders won't fix the fundamental driver of the phenomenon, and the insoluble outcome will occur again as exhibited over and over again throughout human history. The power elite are not even in control.

You conflate government-mandated co-opted production with monetary systems that are controlled by the same people. What significant monetary systems have been controlled by the people instead of the wealthy or the government? There aren't any of note. Gold provided it some times, temporarily throughout history, but it always eventually lost its "decentralization" due to the properties of FRB and the several mass confiscations.

It must be the case that savings in fungible money can not be a perfect perpetual claim on future human productivity, because otherwise past innovation eventually owns all future innovation.

This is a very apt statement.

Money and socialism are intertwined and this will never change.

We have to get to a Star Trekkian utopia at some point, don't we? In the mean time, a system must be devised to separate the control and creation of money from the elected or unelected leaders. Any system that does not allow for the "51% attack" on the money supply is simply going to get replaced now that the cryptocurrency paradigm exists. It seems as if again you are agreeing with me here, though we clashed on this point in the decrits thread. Co-opted production (government socialism) is not the same as co-opted money creation. I do believe my design has the blueprint to make much smoother transitions through the bust periods, and perhaps slow the boom periods simply because money is not created from nothing. Once money is no longer tied to debt-notes or to strictly limited supplies controlled by a few, how different could the cycles be? There is only one way to find out.

[BadBitcoin (James Sutton)]

read parts of...

so is it pro crypto-coins or against crypto-coins?

It is not against crypto-coins in terms of advancing digital money for society. That will probably happen and efficiencies can probably be gained.

It is against the concept that crypto-coins will subvert the power elite and socialism and provide some lasting individual freedom in the way that is gained from truly "personal empowerment technology, e.g. portable energy-dense compact carbon fuels, the automobile, telephone, personal computer, internet, the open source software model, and coming 3D printers.".

The reason being that no currency will ever exist that isn't subject to control by the majority, as explained in the OP. There is even a technical justification in the OP.

Whereas, true personal empowerment technologies (such as the examples provided above) enable routing around facets of control of the majority.

wtf http://printin3d.com/

plastics are nothing for manufacturing, metal/ceramics combinations with existing manufacturing lines is where the future is going.

[AnonyMint]

plastics are nothing for manufacturing, metal/ceramics combinations with existing manufacturing lines is where the future is going.

3D printing does metal with sintering. The material strength and smoothness is roughly as good as cast, but not yet as smooth or strong as forged or machined (although the 3D printed cars proves that better geometry obtainable with 3D printing can compensate for material strength).

Also I think there may be advances on the granularity of the sintering. At nanoscale, it might surpass forged and machined.

There will never exist a form of highly fungible money (not gold, fiat, nor digital currencies) that will escape from the desires of the majority of society.

It seems to me as if you are agreeing with my point about currency clones and how if they are incentivized with a pyramid-like distribution, they can only be the norm rather than the exception. Even with perpetual debasement, no algorithm or fixed measure can determine the needs of the "51%".

That doesn't logically follow. Early adopters and greater fools is inherent in all investing, but that doesn't mean that one digital currency won't gain sufficient installed mass, to make competition impossible.

Regardless, it has logically nothing to do with the political power of the 51%.

The desires of the majority of society will always migrate towards boom and bust socialism.

I disagree with this point. Booming and busting is a factor that I believe is heavily exacerbated by a manipulated economy. While the technology cycle may be at the heart of the matter,

Booms and busts are caused by the fact that humans love (or feel they need) debt. I doubt this will ever change. See below...

The only way to fund everything is widespread debt and unfunded future promises, i.e. funding by obfuscating mutual self-destruction in debt and misallocation (causing destruction) of human capital.

I have at a few different times mentioned how I believe a currency that disincentivizes creating debt or accepting debt-notes would allow for new types of power structures to emerge. For example, an Open Business where new knowledge acquisition is funded by the people who want the knowledge. The easiest example is Open Pharmaceuticals--where people pay to have research done for targeted diseases.

Ah yes we've been talking about the impacts of crowdfunding:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4867 (my pseudonym is JustSaying there)

However, the reason demand for debt will always be around is because not all the humans can compete and participate in the new technologies perfectly well. They use debt to compensate. And the majority is always behind the technological curve.

Thus you won't be able to prevent debt with a currency design, because debt is desired by the 51%. The political power will route around your attempts.

Thus what gold standard proponents don't understand is that the insoluble political power vacuum that gives rise to booms and busts does not exist nor derive from the form of money used, but rather exists naturally in every society as explained above. The malfeasance of the leaders is not the source of the problem either, rather exist as a manifestation of the insoluble political power vacuum described above. So changing the form of money used or regulating or removing the corrupt leaders won't fix the fundamental driver of the phenomenon, and the insoluble outcome will occur again as exhibited over and over again throughout human history. The power elite are not even in control.

You conflate government-mandated co-opted production with monetary systems that are controlled by the same people.

Please re-read the OP more carefully.

What significant monetary systems have been controlled by the people instead of the wealthy or the government?

Money can't be controlled by the majority because of the power vacuum described in the OP. Money is not the root of the power structure, so money can't displace the power vacuum.

Money and socialism are intertwined and this will never change.

We have to get to a Star Trekkian utopia at some point, don't we? In the mean time, a system must be devised to separate the control and creation of money from the elected or unelected leaders. Any system that does not allow for the "51% attack" on the money supply is simply going to get replaced now that the cryptocurrency paradigm exists. It seems as if again you are agreeing with me here, though we clashed on this point in the decrits thread. Co-opted production (government socialism) is not the same as co-opted money creation. I do believe my design has the blueprint to make much smoother transitions through the bust periods, and perhaps slow the boom periods simply because money is not created from nothing. Once money is no longer tied to debt-notes or to strictly limited supplies controlled by a few, how different could the cycles be? There is only one way to find out.

If it is different, I personally don't believe society will adopt it, because the money we get is what is desired by the outcome of the power vacuum.

In short, the majority will always demand that the government can fund itself out of debt and debasement (thus future taxes, confiscation, and pestilence).

[Etlase2]

That doesn't logically follow. Early adopters and greater fools is inherent in all investing, but that doesn't mean that one digital currency won't gain sufficient installed mass, to make competition impossible.

Bullshit. Switching to a digital currency requires dramatically changing the status quo in regards to money. Don't sit here and tell me that after that status quo is changed it could never be affected again. There is also *nothing* that precludes ongoing currency competition.

Booms and busts are caused by the fact that humans love (or feel they need) debt. I doubt this will ever change.

And who does debt make humans beholden to? Can we just completely eliminate that from the equation and lay the blame "on the numbers" rather than "on the system"? Seems awfully short-sighted to not even consider the latter.

However, the reason demand for debt will always be around is because not all the humans can compete and participate in the new technologies perfectly well. They use debt to compensate. And the majority is always behind the technological curve.

Thus you won't be able to prevent debt with a currency design, because debt is desired by the 51%. The political power will route around your attempts.

Arguments that are completely rooted in the idea of debt-based currencies. "The only option to maintain participation in the economy is debt, therefore people like debt." That is a non sequitur. Such simple logical fallacies cast doubt on any further conclusions.

[AnonyMint]

As far as qualifications, I've been programming since I was about 12, but only as a hobbyist. After learning about bitcoin I went on a two year study of economics, cryptography, network protocols, byzantine fault tolerance, and so on...

I started studying the economics of the world intensely in 2005, when I read a book by Harry Dent that led me down the rabbit hole. I finally ended up realizing that one man understands it all better than all others:

http://armstrongeconomics.com/armstrong_economics_blog/

He and I think almost identically, except I probably disagree on the (at least uninterrupted) rise of China. If  the Yuan will rise significantly in value, then China would move from an exporter to an importer and consumer which could coincide with the collapse of Communist Party system, then China would continue rising after such turmoil. See my comments at http://mpettis.com under my real name Shelby.

I started programming commercially in 1986 when I created one of the world's first WYSIWYG word processors with full functionality (e.g. multi-columns) for a PC (specially the Atari ST which was a contender to the Mac and Windows 3.1 at the time).

That doesn't logically follow. Early adopters and greater fools is inherent in all investing, but that doesn't mean that one digital currency won't gain sufficient installed mass, to make competition impossible.

Bullshit. Switching to a digital currency requires dramatically changing the status quo in regards to money. Don't sit here and tell me that after that status quo is changed it could never be affected again. There is also *nothing* that precludes ongoing currency competition.

I understand marketing. Apparently you don't. I have done it in real life. If digital currencies become widely adopted, it will be because there is some need that is addressed. Once that need is addressed, people will want to use that branded solution, unless there is some other need that could be better addressed.

Unfortunately I think you will find that the needs that are important enough to get people to radically alter the way they conduct their lives is are few and far between.

You get basically one shot at being THE digital currency. That window is rapidly closing, except to the extent that Bitcoin has a fatal flaw that it requires 10 min delay before surety that a transaction won't be doubly-spent. That provides a window of opportunity for the moment. That window of opportunity will closed (taken) by the first currency to fix that. We will discuss that over in your Decrits thread.

Booms and busts are caused by the fact that humans love (or feel they need) debt. I doubt this will ever change.

And who does debt make humans beholden to? Can we just completely eliminate that from the equation and lay the blame "on the numbers" rather than "on the system"? Seems awfully short-sighted to not even consider the latter.

You entirely missed the point in the OP about the source of the power vacuum. The system you speak of is actually embedded in the power vacuum. You have to address that power vacuum if you want to alter the system.

However, the reason demand for debt will always be around is because not all the humans can compete and participate in the new technologies perfectly well. They use debt to compensate. And the majority is always behind the technological curve.

Thus you won't be able to prevent debt with a currency design, because debt is desired by the 51%. The political power will route around your attempts.

Arguments that are completely rooted in the idea of debt-based currencies. "The only option to maintain participation in the economy is debt, therefore people like debt." That is a non sequitur. Such simple logical fallacies cast doubt on any further conclusions.

There was no circular logic. You missed the point that the demand for debt is not due to the existence or non-existence of debt-based money systems. It is exists because it is exists. You can't eliminate it unless you can make all humans equal all the time.

[AnonyMint]

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4955&cpage=1#comment-403134

> So why haven’t you blogged yet

Maybe because our anti-data mining political positions are being recorded [by the NSA].

ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos interviewed House Speaker John Boehner and basically the Congress is trying to shape public opinion so they can go after the whistleblower’s head to make an example of him, using the illogic that collecting vast info is for targeting terrorists, not Americans. But this is illogical because terrorists can certainly use Tor and other technologies to avoid this blanket storage of data. If the CIA was really going after terrorists, they would need more targeted methods to be effective. In my opinion (and I will be proven correct in time), this is all about knowing where the Americans (millionaires) are hiding their money, so no one will escape the coming taxes and confiscations (ahem I mean “bail-ins” and the ilk). This is all about a rogue government and a complete wipeout of private wealth in favor of the NY bankers.

Fuck this. It is time to do something with technology.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4946&cpage=1#comment-403070

Apology I will overpost because I just read some insightful blogs from Martin Armstrong (and I will be offline again for days after this). He explains that hyperinflation (with the Wiemar) only occurs when the majority (of those who have and can create wealth) no longer trust to lend to the government, and all gold & silver coin goes into hiding (with the Rome and Japan examples of Dark Ages).

It’s Always A Confidence Game
Wiemar Republic & Gresham’s Law

In other recent blogs, he is documenting that the NSA is storing all of our activity on the internet with access to the servers of the majors, such as Google, Yahoo, and Apple. And that this is not stop terrorism but to track down and steal all the wealth as was done in the other cases that lead to hyperinflation and in some cases Dark Ages. If the NY bankers succeed, the we must crash & burn first before we get to the loss of confidence chaos that can lead to hyperinflation. He is hoping the youth will be the check on this power grab, as apparently the boomers have a vested interest to sustain the fraud.

So I assert that QE is all about extending this fraudulent system.

P.S. Gold-eagle published my essay No Money Exists Without the Majority without the links.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4946&cpage=1#comment-403066

@Jessica Boxer, Jeff Read, BobW, and Michael Hipp:
Check my perspective on the effects of QE. I see American and European guys building beach mansions in the Philippines while (Americans) living off of disability payments and obviously not any more disabled than I am in with vision in only one eye. Should I claim disability just because the vision in my good eye is declining due to old age and overuse. I obviously can still be productive. The Belgians over age 50 are paid to not work, though they are supposed to stay in their country to receive the benefit, they can game this.

We see the youth unemployment skyrocketing while the boomers retain political control (and government jobs for life especially in Europe), thus austerity predominantly affects the youth. Thus we prioritize the present consumption over high tech adjustment and the future.

I see much of the QE ending up as dollar loans to the developing world, so this is a transfer of ownership of wealth from the western middle class to the banker class which will capitalize on the defaults in the developing world when they can’t service these loans as the global economy finally implodes due to all the waste above.

Every young German I have met traveling in the Philippines works for the German government. I noticed Germany just donating close to a billion to the Philippines for programs to combat climate change, yet we know AGW is a fraud.

So the effects of QE are to waste capital and put the bankers in control of the benefits from the coming collapse.

@me:

We see the youth unemployment skyrocketing while the boomers retain political control (and government jobs for life especially in Europe), thus austerity predominantly affects the youth. Thus we prioritize the present consumption over high tech adjustment and the future.

Forgot the point that this could explain why the 3 x 26 generations (78 year) cycle expects the bottom of this global crisis in 2033, as they boomers will be pushing age 80. The outnumbered youth can finally kick them out.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4946&cpage=1#comment-402900

@Winter:
You attempt to remove blame from the effects of top-down governance. Agriculture in Western Europe declined for numerous reasons all of which can be attributed to mismanagement due to top-down control and the funding of such misallocation. Socialized debt is a future tax. The agricultural sector was suffering under increasing taxes after the hyperinflation of the 3rd century had adversely impacted funding for the military while there were increasing military threats to the east. Pottery records indicate production increased through the 4th, as the rural sector was squeezed for every drop by Rome. As with all debt funding, growth was too rapid, and irrigation was polluted by clearing for too many new settlements. The resultant malnutrition, declining production, localized warlords, and thus disease coincided with the collapse of Western Europe due to the bankruptcy of its top-down militarized, servitude model.

We will likely find the same top-down cause applies to of all Dark Ages– even the famines in Africa.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4946&cpage=1#comment-402880

@Winter:

Netherlands (and UK, Germany). These countries are considered so creditworthy that they occasionally are paid (negative interest) to borrow money

Germany has an official debt-to-GDP ratio of 90%, which is the threshold to question national solvency, but once all the backstops for southern Europe are accounted for, Graham Summers claims the ratio will be 300%. And that doesn’t include the contagion that is coming as the export markets collapse.

It should be a logical hint that no one would invest money for a negative return unless they were lacking other liquid options. ZIRP says nothing about creditworthiness, rather indicative of non-functioning private capital markets due to top-down destruction of the private sector by for example the Euro, unions, labor regulations, etc..

civilization will collapse due to defaults. That has never happened. After the really big disasters, societies and states have forever simply rebuild themselves. And mass defaults are not even the really big disasters.

The population of Rome plummeted -97% from 1.4 million in 450AD to 40,000 over the next 1000+ years.[1]

Dark Ages where the population abandons cities occurred in Greece from 1600 – 1200BC (with coinage only re-appearing in 7th century BC), after the collapse of Rome that lasted 600 years, and in Japan for 600 years during which no coinage was created.[2]

[1] Sovereign Debt Crisis Conference, Armstrong
[2] Are we Headed into a Mad Max Scenario?, Armstrong

[AnonyMint]

Bitcoin has MANY flaws, not the one.

Hey dolt, I was talking about mass market needs, not flaws that don't matter to the masses.

[AnonyMint]

Just sent this out for publishing on the internet. You should find it by searching the title "Asia Rising, West Declining" with Google within a day or so.

Asia Rising, West Declining

Asia will lead out of the coming global economic collapse because the Heritage Foundation data states the government spending as a percentage of the economy is significantly lower than in the West.

http://www.heritage.org/index/explore

Latin America's low government spending population is (sans Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, and Venezuela) only 320 million-- much smaller than Asia's.

Thus despite rampant oligarchy collusion with government (e.g. Chinese SOEs, Korean Chaebols), the Asian population is not addicted to government spending. This is critical because we have to consider the different ways societies can adjust to a debt and misallocation crisis.

Societies which have nearing retirement age bulges in their population pyramids and thus high levels of social spending, are not able to write-down the capital stock and reallocate it to more efficient users. Instead of quickly defaulting on the political owners (the lenders) and the synergistic political majority boomer parasites, such decaying societies must do austerity on the youth (see high youth unemployment in southern Europe) and confiscate (ZIRP and "bail-ins") from the savers. At the bottom, this failed direction rations the retirements. Armstrong's (and my) 78 year cycle model says the West bottoms 2033 which is 26 years after the decline began in 2007, i.e. a lost generation. Japan is the perennial example, with Europe and the U.S.A. following on cue. These vested interests (lenders and boomers) throw support to all draconian measures which can maintain this stasis. Some examples include the G20 starting to call for hunting down wealth globally, France imposing wealth taxes and capital controls, and the NSA saving all communications so as to know where all wealth is being hidden (terrorists know how to use encryption and Tor, most savers don't). Note Japan's lost generation is almost complete and is nearing the final capitulation and bottoming phase.

Whereas, societies which are not burdened by this vested interest addicted to government spending, can "throw the bums out" and default on the lenders, to get capital flowing again to the efficient private sector.

The developing world (sans China) is becoming short the dollar with dollar bond issues and loans flooding fixed capital speculation and misallocation, thus will have a liquidity crisis when the dollar strengthens as the wheels fall off of Europe first and export (goods and services) income caters. China also has huge debts and imbalances as documented by Michael Pettis et al. Yet what remains after this coming chaos, is Asia a place of relative freedom and the West burdened by politics of wealth redistribution and the police states with breakdown of rule of law that accompany such. Private capital and innovation will leave for where it won't be attacked. China censors the internet, yet the NSA saves everything. The former is transparent to the people and readily subverted by them, the latter is hidden from the people and implicitly supported by the politics of wealth redistribution.

[AnonyMint]

I was challenged, and I rebutted as follows.

http://www.mpettis.com/2013/06/10/how-much-investment-is-optimal/#comment-23978

I am writing from the perspective of social capital & trajectory, since I am projecting the future.

When the rule of law is itself corrupted by the demands of boomers to maintain what can't be maintained, thus handing control of the government to the bankers who will never write-down the capital stock, then the rule of law is an illusion that is already rotten inside and waiting for the Minsky moment.

Whereas, China's people are becoming increasingly vocal about corruption and their actions are increasingly capitalistic. I was told by a Chinese recently that it is perfectly okay to criticize the government, just don't organize into groups when doing so. The only practical limit is to not challenge the actual authority by organizing. Whereas in the West, it is becoming increasingly politically incorrect to criticize the government. In the USA, there are even laws and Homeland security policies that characterize a person as a terrorist if they belong to certain ideologies.

China is liberalizing their financial door slowly, while the West is closing it, now with capital controls increasing.

Absolutely not, the Chinese criticize socialism and praise capitalism. Whereas, Westerners criticize capitalism (Obama!, ZIRP, bailins, etc) and embrace socialism.

I can't imagine how you could be so blind. Oh wait, yes I can. You are Westerner, so you believe this propaganda you've been fed about your social capital being superior to China.

No you've gotten it backwards. Not having welfare in place, means the free market and private capital is more free to invest and innovate. Two more phenomenal decades of this private enterprise will provide the funding for the social programs China needs 20 years from now.

Chinese readily subvert the censorship on the internet, using varied techniques such as misusing words so their meaning is obscured. A few VPNs of input, can be spread out by forum posts and word-of-mouth.

I didn't say China has better respect for privacy NOW, I said that their control is not opaque and the citizens are not living in a fantasy world believing they have privacy. Thus they've been having a dialogue about it, and are well along the way towards being ready to dismantled it when the Minsky moment comes. Whereas the West is in denial thinking they are good, but actually rotten to the core of their social capital needs. And when the Minsky moment comes, the West is going devolve into what it really is behind the curtain.

How much you want to bet that the USA public eventually forgets the recent NSA infocalypse, and the behind-the-curtain abuses increase? Whereas, the Chinese are not going to forget until they obtain the freedom to capitalize freely.

[AnonyMint]

I was challenged again and rebutted again. See link in prior post for link to discussion.

============

Andao, did you ignore that I specifically said I am looking for evidence not comparing what is NOW, but the trajectory of where we are going in the FUTURE?

My main point of evidence is that in the West we can act as if we are free and most believe they are, but we are being secretly recorded, as proved by the recent infocalypse revealed by Edward Snowden (with numerous others providing similar leaks since 2001).

Whereas in China, the people know very well they are not entirely free, and they know they are being blocked and recorded.

The other evidence I offered is the fact that the West can not have unsocialized debts defaultss without destroying the retirement of the majority of the voters. Whereas, China can. Thus the West can not move away from socialism, China can. Thus the West is lying to itself about moving towards socialism, and China is not lying about moving away from socialism.

The opposing trajectories over the past 3 decades are clear and accelerating. China has opened from 100% totalitarianism to 50+% capitalism. The West has slid from capitalism to socialism and fascism underneath, and only capitalism on the face. Does ZIRP, bail-ins, significant proportion on the population on government support, union control of Europe, etc. not sufficient evidence for you?

I am rushed now, if you want to rebut, I can try to compose a stronger counter argument next time.