|
TPTB_need_war
|
 |
April 11, 2015, 11:15:21 AM
Last edit: April 11, 2015, 11:26:13 AM by TPTB_need_war |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin mining is now a specialized and very risky industry, just like gold mining. Amateur miners are unlikely to make much money, and may even lose money. Bitcoin is much more than just mining, though!
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
TPTB_need_war
|
|
April 11, 2015, 11:22:43 AM
Last edit: April 11, 2015, 11:47:48 AM by TPTB_need_war |
|
I propose letting this thread return to the the topic of Economic Devastation
We never left the main topic. The "utilitarian" Marxism system (i.e. encompassing its intransigent ideologically intoxicated support of the people) is retarding the people's the adaptation to the Knowledge Age, by bribing and intoxicating them with ideology, debt, welfare, etc.. Cryptocurrency is the best educational tool in this regard that has ever existed. It drives people to think about the complexities of the state, fiat currency, and centralized control. Perhaps given enough time tools such as this will allow us to reach critical mass? Our chances on that front do not appear all that favorable.
I can't even change your mind on the real coercion being mass murder at the end game, and you still want a War on Human Trafficking and a War on Teenage Pregnancy. Reprogramming the minds of Marxist masses has never been accomplished and never will be. All we can do is make tools which we individuals can use to protect ourselves against the Marxist masses. Those who want to save themselves will educate themselves on how to use these tools. Our odds of succeeding in protecting ourselves individually are probably quite high. We will employ many different tools, strategies and circumstances, i.e. a free market of autonomous actors. You see your mind is still stuck in Marxism. You are always thinking about the plight of the entire society, as if any humans really have any control over that whatsoever. Sorry to tell you, nature is on auto-pilot. You'd better focus on yourself. Make sure you read James A. Donald's comments I linked in the prior post. He explains why this desire to sacrifice yourself (or even your dog) for people far away that you will never meet, is why you end up supporting mass murder just as the German citizens enthusiastically supporting Hitler. It is really a mental disease. Sorry. I know you have a good heart and intentions, but your rationality has fallen into an irrational emotional ideology. http://accelus.thomsonreuters.com/special-report/money-laundering-and-corruption-meeting-new-responsibilitiesGround-breaking changes are being made by the United States where prosecutors are getting results with new tactics to crack down on banks that fail to fight money laundering. The process is simple — getting the suspects in a wide range of criminal cases to help them follow the money back to their bankers. In another new development, prosecutors are using PayPal and virtual currencies to fight human trafficking as they mine for clues as to the identity and source of funds of those who oversee and control the prostitutes.
|
|
|
|
vokain
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1019
|
|
April 11, 2015, 12:51:56 PM
Last edit: April 11, 2015, 01:13:05 PM by vokain |
|
What's the optimal Myers-Briggs?
Actually I expected that, and was surprised no one had called my bluff on that. I was positing that possibly the Judging attribute of Myers-Briggs is correlated with the propensity to accept collectivism for its (false) promise of rendering (fair and effective) judgement on others (a form of Stockholm Syndrome) and not instead rail against with "Give me liberty or death!". Or just in general needing judgement to be rendered by some authority, e.g. even a business collective (you know who I am thinking of  ). I am not sure if that theory of mine is true. I have only tested it anecdotally. My hypothesis is that those who test towards Judging instead of Perception, have an emotional need for control. I surmise they feel life just couldn't be fair and meritorious if everyone didn't play by the same rules. What they miss is the fact that life is never going to be the same for any two individuals. Path dependencies of life are divergent and impossible to rationally judge any two paths by any fixed, involuntary common set of rules (one size can't fit all situations, which is why a jury of peers was the closest to "fair" (i.e. optimal outcomes) because they can weigh all the circumstances with more proximate but imperfect knowledge and understanding). What they miss on a deeper level of analysis is that life is inherently never one playing field and thus it is entirely a waste of time worrying about what others do. The goal of life is what you can do with your life. Your concerns about others should be in terms of your actual interactions with specific people, not some abstract rule or concept of people you will never meet and thus have insufficient understanding of and insufficient rationalized incentive for meddling. I could write a book about this. I could expend a lot of time contemplating this subject matter. There is far too much to cover in forum posts... ...interesting topic. Your hypothesis is certainly corroborated: "They [NPs] have little patience for social customs that seem illogical or that obstruct the pursuit of ideas and knowledge. This may place them at odds with people in the SJ (Sensing/Judging) types, since SJs tend to defer to authority, tradition, and what the rest of the group is doing.[2]" [2] Keirsey, David (1998). Please Understand Me II: Temperament, Character, Intelligence. Del Mar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis Book Company. p. 205. ISBN 1-885705-02-6. |
|
|
|
|
CoinCube (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
|
|
April 11, 2015, 02:31:31 PM |
|
Your hypothesis is certainly corroborated:
"They [NPs] have little patience for social customs that seem illogical or that obstruct the pursuit of ideas and knowledge. This may place them at odds with people in the SJ (Sensing/Judging) types, since SJs tend to defer to authority, tradition, and what the rest of the group is doing.[2]"
[2] Keirsey, David (1998). Please Understand Me II: Temperament, Character, Intelligence. Del Mar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis Book Company. p. 205. ISBN 1-885705-02-6.
Or perhaps not. http://www.16personalities.com/intj-personalityRules, limitations and traditions are anathema to the INTJ personality type - everything should be open to questioning and reevaluation, and if they see a way, INTJs will often act unilaterally to enact their technically superior, sometimes insensitive, and almost always unorthodox methods and ideas. INTJs are simultaneously the most starry-eyed idealists and the bitterest of cynics, a seemingly impossible conflict. But this is because INTJ types tend to believe that with effort, intelligence and consideration, nothing is impossible, while at the same time they believe that people are too lazy, short-sighted or self-serving to actually achieve those fantastic results. Yet that cynical view of reality is unlikely to stop an interested INTJ from achieving a result they believe to be relevant. |
|
|
|
vokain
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1019
|
|
April 11, 2015, 02:36:14 PM
Last edit: April 11, 2015, 04:20:20 PM by vokain |
|
Do you believe a hierarchical government could trump an egalitarian anarchy with enough "effort, intelligence, and consideration"?
Edit: highlight for reasoning
<start highlighting>
it's a trick question of sorts. "Trump by what standards?" you may ask.
Meant to show that absolutely, an anarchy can allow hierarchical government but not vice versa.
</>
Edit 2: I said "corroborated". Your point corroborates your posit. I will counterargue that to me, one of the definers of these models carries greater weight than the practitioners in terms of interpretation of his system's definitions...
|
|
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war
|
|
April 11, 2015, 02:39:06 PM |
|
Can anyone explain why even though the dates in the following chart do not align on a 8.6 year cycle, that Armstrong is not deviating from the scientific method?  P.S. This is a test. I can explain it. Hint, pay careful attention to what the dates represent and what the 8.6 cycle represents and then read his other post and this one. |
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war
|
|
April 11, 2015, 02:51:36 PM
Last edit: April 11, 2015, 03:03:31 PM by TPTB_need_war |
|
INTJs seem to prefer what they can enumerate and apply with forethought. And they are skeptical of any claim without instances of proof.
So if we claim that competitive anarchy is better, yet anarchy never existed, they may fail to see how we are any less deluded than they are.
If we argue that all instances of involuntary collectivism have eventually devolved to a horrible end game, they can counter that no instances of anarchy have prevented it. I can counter that individual empowerment (a.k.a. frontiers) is what has mitigated unrestrained coercion of collectivism and prevented the extreme event of extinction (cancer killing the host). They can counter that I have no proof of that.
We on the Perception side are capable of visualizing that a conceptual paradigm has certain impacts without needing to prove it with equations and precise data. They don't trust this. It unconvincing to them.
Would that be accurate CoinCube?
CoinCube is probably correct that we will be unable to mitigate all the impacts of the coming collapse. And we will argue that our efforts have provided some relief and that we should aim to attain more individual empowerment against the coercion of the collective. CoinCube will probably continue to doubt whether the free market can always provide justice and continue to think it will have some downsides which could go to extremes if we were to eliminate the State entirely. And we counter that he can't prove that either.
I say we all go accomplish and do what we want. And each other make our choices. And let the chips fall where they may.
Life is complex.
(I understand CoinCube's point but I can't possibly bring myself to support large government. Small, local governments I can tolerate, as long as I can walk away when they start devolving).
|
|
|
|
vokain
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1019
|
|
April 11, 2015, 02:56:58 PM
Last edit: April 11, 2015, 04:47:41 PM by vokain |
|
Can anyone explain why even though the dates in the following chart do not align on a 8.6 year cycle, that Armstrong is not deviating from the scientific method? P.S. This is a test. I can explain it. Hint, pay careful attention to what the dates represent and what the 8.6 cycle represents and then read his other post and this one. Because he had better repute and possibly better fluency in math than Terence McKenna? The dates appear to increase in frequency, supporting the idea that the pattern of economic cycles repeats in increasingly rapid intervals, and since the 8.6 year average is a linear statistic... is that what you were getting at? |
|
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war
|
|
April 11, 2015, 03:00:44 PM |
|
wavefronts interference. The business cycle is not the same wave as the international crisis cycle. This is why you would need computer to search all of fractal patterns and pull out the cycles from the interference.
|
|
|
|
vokain
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1019
|
|
April 11, 2015, 03:09:31 PM |
|
wavefronts interference. The business cycle is not the same wave as the international crisis cycle. This is why you would need computer to search all of fractal patterns and pull out the cycles from the interference.
Could you say the business cycle wave and the "international crisis cycle" wave however you may define them may be interconnected? |
|
|
|
|
Wekkel
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3108
Merit: 1531
yes
|
|
April 11, 2015, 03:16:08 PM |
|
Someone please send my rebuttal to that obnoxious, pompous, Dunning-Kruger boomer Denninger. I sure as hell won't register on his board since I like a 'free' environment. Nevertheless, I am intrigued by the debate insofar it regards the creation of non-backed credit. I have not seen this point refuted or disassembled by either you or Armstrong. I find that strange, since the point is very easy to grasp. If someone can create unbacked credit that (i) functions as money but (ii) does nothing to enhance society (Denninger uses the example of using credit to either build productive assets or not), why allow for it? If I understand Denninger correctly, he merely opposes banks creating credit that is not backed by either collateral or the bank's own capital. The rebuttal of Armstong is, well ... let's stay honest .... appalling. I Iearned nothing from Armstrong on this point. Can't he write a simple rebuttal that makes sense? In the end, you can't argue maths. The only question is which maths apply  But I won't burn my fingers on this topic and let the Behemoths fight it out. |
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war
|
|
April 11, 2015, 03:21:53 PM
Last edit: April 11, 2015, 03:45:09 PM by TPTB_need_war |
|
wavefronts interference. The business cycle is not the same wave as the international crisis cycle. This is why you would need computer to search all of fractal patterns and pull out the cycles from the interference.
Could you say the business cycle wave and the "international crisis cycle" wave however you may define them may be interconnected? The A.I. computer has apparently figured that out and it is very complex and it is isn't only the interference of just two cycles. Essentially the computer could map all the possibilities and then determine which complex relationship holds true for all dates for different cyclical events. It isn't really A.I. rather exhaustive search. It might be A.I. in a sense if the computer is altering the structure of what it is searching for based on entropy of its input data set. But as I pointed in my essay, it isn't A.I. in the sense that it is not interacting with the unbounded (in time) entropy of the evolutionary environment: http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html#Algorithm_!=_Entropy |
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war
|
|
April 11, 2015, 03:28:37 PM
Last edit: April 11, 2015, 03:57:35 PM by TPTB_need_war |
|
Wekkel, sorry you didn't understand my post (what is the point of repeating what I already wrote?). I ask aminorex to try to explain it, if he agrees with me. You are suffering from similar myopia as Denninger. Price discovery, hedging, maximization of fit, etc over events that have fractal or non-linear change requires the higher order model of Black-Scholes. Sorry CoinCube, I am not going to be able to teach all the people. I am going to have go introverted and just do what I think will help me and others who have similar views and needs as I do. |
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war
|
|
April 11, 2015, 03:49:54 PM
Last edit: April 11, 2015, 05:14:08 PM by TPTB_need_war |
|
Price discovery, hedging, maximization of fit, etc over events that have fractal or non-linear change requires the higher order model of Black-Scholes.
Some insight: http://blog.mpettis.com/2015/02/when-do-we-decide-that-europe-must-restructure-much-of-its-debt/#comment-121159
Um.. I did not understand at all what's it about? Armstrong is saying leverage is necessary. Denninger is saying we could have 100% backed financial system. I agree with Armstrong, but I disagree that a central bank can regulate leverage. The free market must do it, and by providing transparency of reserve ratios for a decentralized crypto-currency banking system, i.e. it will all be on the public ledger. How is my help needed? Did not delve on the topic but intuitively markets should do what they want incl leverage and CB can only destroy it by interfering. Principle is that in all deals of 2 parties, if one gains in the expense of the other, the other should be the sole sufferer. If leverage was too great to wipe out the collateral (or all assets if they were pledged), the winner should fail to receive gains in excess of what the loser is able to pay. I can't see how this is not enough of a principle for all deals, including those involving leverage. The point is not individual risk but impacts of systemic risk. Ah I was just asking for help to explain what I was trying to explain in detail in my posts which I provided you a linked to. I am unable to assess systemic risk, and opposed that anything should be forbidden or regulated based on the notion that someone thinks to be able to do it. I still don't know where my help is needed and actually would prefer to concentrate on my work rather than talk about a topic where I am not competent yet have strong principles My point was same. That only the free market can regulate it. And I said we need transparency of reserve ratios, not a CB. |
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war
|
|
April 11, 2015, 04:57:29 PM
Last edit: April 11, 2015, 07:24:10 PM by TPTB_need_war |
|
CoinCube, I haven't had much time to think deeply. My reason to subvert the oversight of government with technology is because without I note power corrupts absolutely and there is no feedback loop that can limit collectivism. The masses don't wake up and change the direction (remember the Petri dish from Understanding Everything Fundamentally which you linked from the opening post of this thread). Whereas, the free market does limit anarchy such that it doesn't have such devolved, unmitigated disasters. Anarchy can result in egregious individual losses, but it doesn't have the systemic risk of collectivism. That is my simplest way of proving to you that I am correct. Does that advance our understanding of our differences? If you understand what I wrote to be factually correct, then why be repulsed by those egregious individual harm that can come from anarchy? Collectivism also wields egregious individual harm but worse in the form of widespread systemic collapse. How did we diverge? I agree there will be a plurality of top-down organizations within anarchy (not just one big collective that swallows everything). But the difference is that the free market is voluntary and competitive and thus the plurality of top-down controllers will never devolve into a single-minded, top-down, systemic catastrophe. Well there is one exception I can think of where anarchy devolves to systemic collapse. Let's say we know an asteroid is heading for earth, yet no top-down actor in the anarchy has the incentive to act. Then we might need an involuntary collective to act and destroy the asteroid before it impacts the earth. But that is hardly a great argument for keeping collectives around perennially. Can you think of any other examples that are more compelling in your side? I am not motivated to stop human trafficking and teenage pregnancy with a global government, because for one reason those are economic activities else they wouldn't exist. They aren't being subsidized by government (and to the extent they are, then reducing government will reduce them which is what you want). When the government destroys what is economic there are kinds of unexpected impacts which are also very harmful to individuals. I provided a detailed post upthread about some of those adverse impacts. I just don't understand why you favor these actions? You say you are a thinking and judging man, so by what evidence? I think if you dig into it, you will end up being converted just as you were on the Global Warming lies. You asked earlier why I encouraged I3552 to spell out his ideas. I did so because I continue to look for a solution that would permit gradual decline rather than collapse. If he returns with further refinements to his idea I will hear him out as I will with anyone who genuinely believes they can contribute to a solution.
There can not be gradual decline. It never works that way when such beyond extreme imbalances have been accumulated as we have now in the world. We only have an option to adapt rapidly which could mitigate some of the collapse. But the masses can not adapt unless they are given some economic reason to, i.e. a pathway from the Petri dish with more food. A crypto-currency could be such an enticingly profitable pathway perhaps (to some extent). But why get so enamored with I3552's proposal for a currency based on the hodler's reputation value (anonymous with pseudonyms or not, doesn't matter due to Dunbar limit scaling) when we know precisely the problem now is that corruption is peaking, and it can't be just the leaders are corrupt, the people must be corrupt too otherwise they would have kicked the leaders out a long time ago. His proposal would thus just be more of the same. You see the basic fallacy is that organisms in the Petri dish are self-interested thus implicitly want to kill the host. They are gamed by reputation now, and will continue to be. And you too. Emotionally ("repulsed") you would need to empower a global government to go trample on other cultures because it personally bothers you that anyone (that you don't know and will never meet) would do teenage pregnancy and trade involving humans (a.k.a. human trafficking). |
|
|
|
|
thaaanos
|
|
April 11, 2015, 06:37:49 PM |
|
have you read Dune? If not you will find the notion of the Golden Path intresting
|
|
|
|
|
OROBTC
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2912
Merit: 1852
|
|
April 11, 2015, 06:50:37 PM
Last edit: April 11, 2015, 07:01:46 PM by OROBTC |
|
...
CoinCube & TPTB_n_w
As far as I am concerned the recent contributions on this thread do fit the general nature of "Economic Devastation".
CC, I was yanking your chain re Collectivist a couple of pages back... I think it is ILLEGAL for true Marxists to start internet threads on topics like Economic Devastation.
TPTB, If you now have a business website up, why not post it, and let us take a look?
* * *
While reading through the past 25 or so posts here I encountered the idea, developed a bit, re governments devolving quickly or slowly. I am not competent to offer a good prediction as to when/how "The System" will collapse, but my inclination is to think it will likely happen fast. That seems to be the nature of big changes historically.
* * *
Armstrong is emphatic on one idea that I have taken to heart. Instead of worrying about "what should be", more personal efforts (preparation, education) should be devoted instead to "what actually is". I have taken to evangelizing less and trying harder to actually SEE and understand what is going on. And then acting accordingly.
As a personal example, I think that President H. Clinton would likely be bad for the USA. (Not for the elites though) But am I trying to do anything about that? No, unless you count the jokes at her expense I send to my 'Net buddies... Instead, I am trying to prepare for a host of scenarios, many of them bad, that could shake-out. In other words, looking our for myself and our lil ol family.
* * *
While I have read some of Denninger, opinions I respect call him a douche. Or would that be Douchinger?
|
|
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war
|
|
April 11, 2015, 07:39:26 PM
Last edit: April 12, 2015, 01:22:13 PM by TPTB_need_war |
|
OROBTC, the site I launched today has nothing to do with the things we are discussing, it has no use to you (you are already married correct?), and the last thing I need (at this early juncture) is haters DDoS attacking my harmless site because they resent my views here. The only benefit for you would be to get a sample of my capabilities, but it isn't worth the risk to me to share it publicly here now. The source code of what I launched today is 250 kB, i.e. roughly 5000 lines of JavaScript, PHP, MySQL, HTML, and Apache code. That is decent sized project for one man to code as a starting point. It is a rehash of a project I had coded in 2010 and shutdown, but I did go over every line of code with a fine tooth comb and rewrote about half the code (all in about a 160 man-hours of actual coding time, I was too sick or wasting time writing in forums with the remainder of that 2 month period). I also wrote a several 1000s of lines of code on other projects in 2014 and early 2015, some of which was some crypto-currency code and the other is an unreleased Android app. If I ever release work relevant to our discussions here, it will be announced anonymously. You won't know it is me, unless you happen to deduce it based on certain features or my writing style. Armstrong is emphatic on one idea that I have taken to heart. Instead of worrying about "what should be", more personal efforts (preparation, education) should be devoted instead to "what actually is". I have taken to evangelizing less and trying harder to actually SEE and understand what is going on. And then acting accordingly.
I am emphatic on that. Not Armstrong. That is my point. |
|
|
|
OROBTC
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2912
Merit: 1852
|
|
April 11, 2015, 08:21:05 PM |
|
... Sí Señor TPTB, I am married (in fact our only daughter marries soon). So as you suggest, no, I would not be interested in a "Filipinas R Us" website.  And, correct, I would not want to cause or be a part of any sleazy DDoS or similar. 5000 lines of code is a lot to keep track of for one man. I have enough problems writing SQL (the only thing I am even half-assed in). * * * I did see along "Armstrong Way" at some point words to the effect of: "don't worry about the way things should be, instead look at what is." It's interesting how men whose opinions I respect (in philosophy and religion) say the same. |
|
|
|
|
CoinCube (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
|
|
April 12, 2015, 03:17:06 AM
Last edit: April 12, 2015, 04:36:44 AM by CoinCube |
|
INTJs seem to prefer what they can enumerate and apply with forethought. And they are skeptical of any claim without instances of proof.
So if we claim that competitive anarchy is better, yet anarchy never existed, they may fail to see how we are any less deluded than they are.
If we argue that all instances of involuntary collectivism have eventually devolved to a horrible end game, they can counter that no instances of anarchy have prevented it. I can counter that individual empowerment (a.k.a. frontiers) is what has mitigated unrestrained coercion of collectivism and prevented the extreme event of extinction (cancer killing the host). They can counter that I have no proof of that.
We on the Perception side are capable of visualizing that a conceptual paradigm has certain impacts without needing to prove it with equations and precise data. They don't trust this. It unconvincing to them.
Would that be accurate CoinCube?
CoinCube is probably correct that we will be unable to mitigate all the impacts of the coming collapse. And we will argue that our efforts have provided some relief and that we should aim to attain more individual empowerment against the coercion of the collective. CoinCube will probably continue to doubt whether the free market can always provide justice and continue to think it will have some downsides which could go to extremes if we were to eliminate the State entirely. And we counter that he can't prove that either.
I say we all go accomplish and do what we want. And each other make our choices. And let the chips fall where they may.
Life is complex.
(I understand CoinCube's point but I can't possibly bring myself to support large government. Small, local governments I can tolerate, as long as I can walk away when they start devolving).
TPTB we appear to be converging towards consensus once more. We usually always do eventually which is somewhat interesting given that our often dramatically different starting positions. From the logic above you can see why I reach the conclusions I do mainly. Ideally, the decline of the state should be in a progressive, inexorable and gradual allowing time for the development of DACs to promote progressive freedom and lay the groundwork for further shrinkage of the state.
and I oppose the creation of a vacuum unless there is absolutely no other choice.
Show me the existing not hypothetical decentralized alternative that has any realistic chance of efficiently replacing a centralized solution and I will support it enthusiastically.
You can count on me to have significant reservations about any solution that relies on destroying existing state functions in the hopes that things will just turn out ok.
|
|
|
|
|
