Bitcoin Forum
October 21, 2019, 06:58:21 PM *
News: 10th anniversary art contest
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 [143] 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Economic Devastation  (Read 503951 times)
iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 258



View Profile
January 19, 2017, 11:04:27 AM
Last edit: January 19, 2017, 06:54:19 PM by iamnotback
 #2841

You used to understand how usury limits the growth of the knowledge. The quote below is from your essay The Rise of Knowledge.

Quote
“Thus if knowledge production was increasingly not financeable, then we would expect to see top-down suppression of knowledge production by vested financing interests and widespread theft by those vested interests trying to maintain levels of net worth they would not have in an economy with more knowledge production.

I assert that is what we see today. To correctly argue that politics is the cause of allowing excessive indebtedness and its resultant misallocation of resources (which is a loss of knowledge), is as irrelevant as arguing whether the chicken or the egg is first. It is sufficient that there exists the destruction and suppression of knowledge coincident with the macro-economic failure of over indebtedness, to conclude the financing and knowledge production do not coexist. Because we know from the “Economy of Knowledge” section, that knowledge production must increase as a share of GDP for there to be increasingly prosperity.”

You later argue that the suppression of knowledge will end because the "entropic force" necessitates a decline in usury over time. This argument is akin to pointing out that a boulder perched atop a mountain is destined to fall to the valley floor below. The statement is true but not necessarily helpful. Elsewhere you have posited that a vast dark economy will grow and then destroy the existing social order via anonymous economic warfare. This appears to be the heart of your bifurcation hypothesis. The war of anonymity against the state is your mechanism for how the rock falls and I simply don't think this is how things will play out. Indeed the exact opposite appears to be the case. We are on the verge of an era of utter transparency. This transparency will have major downsides but ultimately it will yield benefits that exceed the costs. The rock will fall via a different path. It is transparency that will ultimately force us to behave better for our sins will become visible to all.

My writings as summarized above are not inconsistent with my bifurcation thesis. The bifurcation is the entropic force at work as nature routes around the Coasian barrier. The usurious status quo is resisting change, but the change is insidiously occurring and there is shift of GDP to the Knowledge Age. I didn't write above that the change had to be monolithic in that the financial system had to be discarded entirely for any shift to ensue. Afaik, nature normally changes either with abrupt changes to the physical environment or exponentially growing fledgling paradigm shifts.

I am glad I could clarify my writings for you. I didn't ever intend to imply that the shift must necessarily be monolithic. However, I probably at the time I wrote that essay several years ago, did not yet see how the economics could possibly bifurcate as I didn't understand crypto-currencies and blockchains yet.

Also the anonymity issue is a red-herring. As I have stated recently, until there is a 666 global world government identification number, it is simply impossible for the governments to regulate/tax trillions of globalized, cross-border crypto-currency microtransactions per year. So anonymity isn't a necessary element for the bifurcation to proceed. The governments don't have the resources and technical capabilities to effectively tax and regulate trillions of $0.0001 transactions that cross borders. As for the larger players, they will use tax jurisdictions (thus they aren't breaking the law) and anonymity to raise the costs of government to even know who they are (and if you have millions of $millionaires doing this then it becomes too costly for government to track).

The Chinese have a culture of hidden defection (don't raise your head too high above the poppy seeds). Thus they will go along with the Singapore model, while circumventing it in sneaky hidden ways. That is the way their culture works because their public face is not the same as their private face ("saving face" in public). In essence they are being fake in public, but this is also real for them, i.e. my understanding is they believe the public result is very important (and what they accomplish privately is okay as long as the public result is always improving). Some Chinese (perhaps even many or most) may even try to match their private actions to their public ones, yet there would be significant numbers who don't. Notice how periodically there are major public uproars in Asian countries about corruption of high ranked officials, and they resign or are forced out in shame. It is as if the Asians are aghast that their overlords are not also following the same culture. In Singapore, it seems the corruption is probably tied up in the determination of and then gaming of the myriad of subsidies and tax benefits for certain industries and investments. Of course if you are a doctor it would behove you to migrate to Singapore, since the government is mandating that the citizens save 20% for medical care, so the medical system is poised to grow. Which is wonderful for me that there is a high quality medical system nearby.

The statists are going to double-down on more government, but nature will not be denied an escape valve. As always... (e.g. even iin the Dark Middle Ages, the economics escaped to the East)



Edit: I accept even the statist outcomes as natural and avail of them to the extent they don't lock me into changing my core values and philosophy. Which is primarily to be free, because by being free I am most able to gain experience, interaction, and creative inspiration which impacts my productivity (the meaning of my life). I want to accomplish something that impacts a lot of people in a positive way, if possible. I don't think there will be any one Utopian design. There are competing ideas. This is what makes life interesting IMO.

I made one set of choices in my life which severely restricted my freedom. That was to expose myself to very destructive health environment and subsequent acquired numerous life threatening infections and even physical trauma. And I didn't have a reproductive strategy and just allowed random outcomes to trap me in a couple of decades of the resultant quagmire of bearing children without forethought. I realize now that to be free, we also have a responsibility to plan well. This also caused me to become quite depressed at some points in my younger days and resulted in some bizarre behavior. Given that I was trying to figure out how to live in this world with a constitution that didn't seem to fit the world I grew up in, I can understand why it has taken me a long journey to mature and try to figure out how to accomplish and solidify who I am and how to make sure I accomplish my goals. We are all so unique.

I am not at all against humans helping each other. Even with strings attached, so as to enforce certain disciplines. It makes me happy to see others happy. A well functioning society for me would be one with real feelings. And voluntary goodness is for me a very real feeling and is a form of love. And it is even selfishly justifiable because if you want to be happy, then you need to also make others happy. Because man is nothing by himself alone on an island.

But all of this statist enforcement is removing the real feelings. And it is trampling on diversity. But it is also a natural outcome of human nature. There is a competition of ideas.

I don't like to see kids suffering. But I also don't like to see them spoiled. I enjoy for example playing basketball with the young boys. I have donated before for example computer equipment to a school in the Philippines. I think it is wonderful when humanity helps each other.
1571684301
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571684301

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1571684301
Reply with quote  #2

1571684301
Report to moderator
1571684301
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571684301

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1571684301
Reply with quote  #2

1571684301
Report to moderator
1571684301
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571684301

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1571684301
Reply with quote  #2

1571684301
Report to moderator
The network tries to produce one block per 10 minutes. It does this by automatically adjusting how difficult it is to produce blocks.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1571684301
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571684301

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1571684301
Reply with quote  #2

1571684301
Report to moderator
1571684301
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571684301

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1571684301
Reply with quote  #2

1571684301
Report to moderator
iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 258



View Profile
January 19, 2017, 01:46:45 PM
Last edit: January 19, 2017, 02:17:03 PM by iamnotback
 #2842

I don't think it is our role to determine for others what society and strategy they will choose.

Those that want to choose to raise a family in Singapore for example, I do not ridicule them. It is in many ways a good strategy for a family or even a profession.

There is not a perfect solution for raising a family. We have limited resources and time, and we have to choose. No system will be perfect or eternal.

I don't think we should worry too much about what will happen to the world. We structure our own individual lives to maximize our productivity and thus happiness. We have to busy on that, not worrying about how the world will work it self out. It is a complex competition of strategies out there.

I am not on a vendetta to attempt to destroy every collectivist society. I am finding ways to be able to continue to innovate regardless of what societies choose to do. Bifurcation is one example of how systems can coexist. I prefer harmony or separation, than war or gridlock.

Production is much better than words, because I don't think there is any absolute truth w.r.t. societal organization and reproductive strategy. It is a soup of competing ideas.

I think I need to get back to working.


Edit: I think one of CoinCube's points is that anonymity is incompatible with the world moving towards global surveillance as part of the lurch towards transparency as collectivism (carrying along with it the usurious monetary system) tries to become more righteous, especially with Asia (Singapore model) leading the way.

I believe CoinCube may be thinking that if crypto-currency enables untraceable cash, then the governments will join together to ban it.

I think they can do this for the crypto-currency that is used by the masses (presuming the masses agree that transparency is desired over privacy which is not a certainty), but I think they can't technically do this for every altcoin. One of the keys to that though is decentralizing the blockchain and putting the control in the hands of the users. No one has yet shown such a technology (but I have something).

In any case, I don't think the lack of anonymity will impact whether a bifurcation is possible, per my prior post. Note the decentralization of the blockchain is necessary for other reasons of scaling and network effects, not just for enabling robust anonymity. So the anonymity aspect is a red-herring.
iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 258



View Profile
January 19, 2017, 02:57:21 PM
Last edit: January 19, 2017, 03:39:33 PM by iamnotback
 #2843

You expanded my positions out of context above to support your philosophical slippery slope argument. You repeatedly argue that every top-down intervention must spiral into an out of control Frankenstein's monster "because you lower the entropy". This argument is simply untrue. Most top-down responses occur because they are necessary to keep individuals from defecting and destroying the rights of their fellows. Top-down control thus maximizes entropy and can only be relaxed when we learn ways to improve our behavior. Without moral progress any disturbance from equilibrium including those introduced by decentralizing technology will just collapse back into the old order because the old order remains the optimal configuration.  

My point is that nothing is a permanent fix and there is no absolute truth. There are competing strategies.

There isn't one order, ever.

It isn't just an issue of moral progress. Even if you are extremely ethical, it is very difficult to raise kids in for example the USA. Your kids are very prone to become very disrespectful to the parents by being exposed to public education and the culture of their peers. So you move to Singapore, but then your kids grow up with the Asian influence of not being an individual and not being unique (e.g. memorization instead of creativity, etc). There is no single absolute truth or best choice for a society or strategy.

Also people don't agree on morals and culture. For example, they don't agree on the level of discipline in the home, whether young kids should have chores and work hard, etc..

You apparently myopically presume that the only purpose of decentralization technology is to enable illegal activities and defection from the aims of a well functioning society. The Internet is decentralization technology. Hello? Do you even understand that the base protocols of the Internet are decentralized.

Do you think blockchains are only about creating crypto-currency? Stay tuned...

And do you think crypto-currency only useful for subversion and investment and not for enabling production that aids a well functioning society that can't be done with the existing monetary systems. Again stay tuned...


Enforcing the sanctity of contracts is one of the primary roles of the state. This allows cooperative outcomes that require coordination. When we bring life into the world both parents impose a their will on the unborn. The parents assume the responsibility to raise the child into adulthood to the best of their ability. The child assume the responsibility of life and all the pain and joys life entails. You take the position that a contract forced upon another deserves less scrutiny than a contract entered into willingly. Indeed the opposite is the case. A contract forced upon another deserves more scrutiny and when there is doubt it should always be interpenetrated in favor of the unwilling participant.

For the State to do so is to claim it is God.

I know many humans haven't yet learned the lesson of Babylon, so please don't let me discourage you.

Again I think there will be many competing strategies. If the leftists succeed in forcing everyone into their system of playing God, then humanity could go existent. But I doubt they will be successful in achieving ubiquitous control over God's (nature's) contract between parents and children.

The Bible does say that humans who disobey the commandments will suffer the government they deserve. So you are not incorrect to say that such governance will rise. But it always overextends and starts to dictate one set of morals over another (political correctness), thus violating diversity.

They will tell you what teachings and culture your children must have. They will disallow you to teach your kids the morals and culture you believe in, for example by overriding you and teaching your kids to shame and talk back at you if you do (or to simply think their parents are wrong and archaic).

You can't create an enforcement controlled by the corruption of the collective (the Iron Law of Political Economics) and expect it to not destroy the goodness of that contract also.

Of course for a short while, societies may be functioning reasonably well, so you choose one and go. For next few decades, Singapore probably be a better choice than most others. But there are tradeoffs.

It is true that making men pay for child support allows immoral women to take advantage of men. Yes this is a massive shift in power from times past when immoral men competed to take advantage of women.

Actually it is empowering immoral men also. Afaik, in strictly conservative societies, the supply of easy women was curtailed.

Tough cookies the individual who's interests supersedes that of both the mother and the father is that of the child.

The problem with your logic is the child is nothing without its parents, regardless of how much financial support the State gives it.

A child needs an identity.

Thus the interests of all of the family is a mutual contract between THEM.

The leftists think they can engineer a better solution than nature did. Good luck.

•   I have no responsibility to help the innocent. It is my choice whether I want to (and I very much may depending on my available resources). This diversity is necessary.
•   There is no nirvana. Nature is what it is. We have to accept it.

Again and again and in various forms you repeat the argument that I refuse to allow failure. I do nothing of the sort. We have many responsibilities one of these is to help the innocent to the best of our ability.

But we are not God. We can't really help a child without also helping the parents, because the child is nothing without the parents. We could totally remove the child from the parents and given them new parents, but raising the child without parents is not successful.

You are saying essentially I am responsible for doing something that is impossible. And leftists always propose to do the impossible and that is why they are so destructive.

All that is necessary to preserve diversity is that we be given free choice to fulfill our responsibilities or reject them. Via our choices we succeed or fail. Freedom of choice and freedom to fail does not entail freedom from consequence.

Exactly. So you need to accept that child will suffer the consequence of the parents' choices regardless of anything the State does. The State can only end up making it worse, as it is has done in the USA and Europe. The evidence is clear that State intervention doesn't work. Look at the divorce rate, the birth rate, the level of hedonism, psychological illness, addiction, drug use amongst teens, etc..

The best we can do is community, i.e. personal connections to the parents. That way we can truly help our fellow man and woman and raise them up. With love and care.

Humans respond to human relationships.

Nature is what it is. We must understand it and the limits it imposes but we do not have to accept it as sacrosanct. Promotion and worship of nature and "natural outcomes" ultimately limits both freedom and progress.

Understanding which natural laws are inviolable are important to understanding how activist moralism can be amoral!


Again I think community is a much more optimum and persuasive method than employing the gulag of the State.

R&L: How would you respond to statements by bureaucracies of religious institutions who defend the welfare state?

Gilder: They don’t believe in their own teachings. What the poor really need is morals. The welfare state destroys the morals of the poor. Poor people in America live better than the middle class in most other countries in the world. The official poor in America have higher incomes and purchasing power than the middle class in the United States in 1955 or the middle class in Japan today. The so-called “poor” are ruined by the overflow of American prosperity. What they need is Christian teaching from the churches. But these same churches are mostly inept at actually preaching to the poor. Instead, they support the welfare state as a sort of proxy.

Because middle class white people don't want to develop personal relationships with dirty poor people.

I lived in the a squalor area. I was a middle class white person. I can attest that it further destroyed me (but I was already initially broken before that). So they aren't being illogical.

See it isn't as simpleton....
miscreanity
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316
Merit: 1005


View Profile
January 19, 2017, 05:19:20 PM
 #2844

My point is that nothing is a permanent fix and there is no absolute truth. There are competing strategies.

There isn't one order, ever.

Isn't the objective of competition to determine the optimal route?

It isn't just an issue of moral progress. Even if you are extremely ethical, it is very difficult to raise kids in for example the USA. Your kids are very prone to become very disrespectful to the parents by being exposed to public education and the culture of their peers. So you move to Singapore, but then your kids grow up with the Asian influence of not being an individual and not being unique (e.g. memorization instead of creativity, etc). There is no single absolute truth or best choice for a society or strategy.

Also people don't agree on morals and culture. For example, they don't agree on the level of discipline in the home, whether young kids should have chores and work hard, etc..

Distinct individuals are at different stages of maturity, so of course there will be different ideas on morals. Assume a scientifically proven benefit (e.g. hand-washing) that is not practiced by an isolated culture: would the best action be to offer the knowledge of the proven benefit and allow those in that isolated culture explore and accept or reject it on their own?

Just because you can lead a horse to water but cannot make it drink doesn't mean it will not eventually. The question I see is: what time frame are we talking about?

To paraphrase: on a long enough time line, does the optimal strategy become agreed upon by all?
iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 258



View Profile
January 19, 2017, 06:55:37 PM
Last edit: January 19, 2017, 11:05:30 PM by iamnotback
 #2845

My point is that nothing is a permanent fix and there is no absolute truth. There are competing strategies.

There isn't one order, ever.

Isn't the objective of competition to determine the optimal route?

Agreed. If we could know the absolute truth, there would be no point in life. Everything would already be predetermined and static. There couldn't exist any uncertainty.




When I speak against the State "caring" for children, it is because only parents can really give kids what they need which is love and a family identity. And moreover, because by empowering the State with jurisdiction over the parents, we enable bad outcomes such as the one that happened to me (which pretty much still has me in shock until now when I think about it), which now CoinCube is aware of as I explained it to him in a private message. But I don't want to share that misfortune in public.

Just please when you have bleeding hearts for "the innocent" please consider that you destroy many innocents and cause worse problems by empowering the State to be God and the parents both. Please don't. IMO, if we really care then we try to be hands-on active in our community, try to help those who can be helped up to our available time and/or resources. If we are very busy, we can donate to others who have more time and we are know are doing good community outreach.

Giving too much power to an entity which has no feelings is very dangerous. We can't run a society as a spreadsheet (there is far too much complexity that needs free market annealing).
miscreanity
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316
Merit: 1005


View Profile
January 19, 2017, 10:35:39 PM
 #2846

My point is that nothing is a permanent fix and there is no absolute truth. There are competing strategies.

There isn't one order, ever.

Isn't the objective of competition to determine the optimal route?

Agreed. If we could know the absolute truth, there would be no point in life. Everything would already be predetermined and static. There couldn't exist any uncertainty.

How much credence do you lend to the notion that this universe may be encapsulated or simulated?
CoinCube
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1778
Merit: 1037



View Profile
January 19, 2017, 11:47:38 PM
Last edit: January 20, 2017, 10:26:44 PM by CoinCube
 #2847


Cryptocurrency is not a real store of value, though.  It is basically at the same level as fiat on Exter's pyramid.  Wealth is derived from resources and labor.  Cryptocurrency will always be the bad money driving out good money compared to an actual resource/commodity based currency whether it's gold, silver, oil, or some other substance.  The problem that it's very difficult to remove counterparty risk on things like uranium and oil always switch roles back to metals such as gold and silver instead.
...

The difference is that crypto currency has the potential to someday climb beyond fiat beyond gold even on Exter's pyramid.

Gold can essentially be thought of as an eternal partially anonymous POW blockchain. It is mined and mining requires work limiting its supply and allowing it to be used as a store of value. Gold does have counterparty risk. The counterparty is society. The purchaser of gold takes the risk that the gold network (the network of individuals in society willing to buy and own gold) will continue to exist. Governments play a role here in that they have the power through their actions to strengthen or weaken this network but they lack the ability to destroy it entirely. The gold network has existed for thousands of years it has also survived multiple government attempts to eliminate it so the counterparty risk is lower than with anything else that exists.

To displace gold cryptocurrency would need to have a counterparty risk that was lower than gold.
This would require
A) Demonstration of enternal nature currency would need to hold its value over several generations
B) Demonstration of resilience cryptocurrency network it would need to show its ability to survive outlast and not be broken or destroyed by hostile government action.

The jury is still out on whether bitcoin can meet these very high hurdles. However, even if bitcoin fails it seems almost inevitable that something will come along someday that can meet them.


What interest me is the role bitcoin plays in improving the signalling mechanism of money. sidhujag has referred to a near perfect money from the framework of Nash's asymptotically ideal money.

At first glance bitcoin does not appear to be ideal money at all. It's utterly fixed quantity of 21 million creates a permanent incentive against growth. In a world with bitcoin as currency people would under-invest as it becomes very profitable to just to hold money. Bitcoin as money introduces a vector opposing growth.

Bitcoin, however, does not exist in a vacuum. It coexists alongside a usury based fiat system. This financed based system is built upon very different foundations. Usury introduces a vector for eternal exponential growth. Eternal exponential growth is impossible in a finite world so under our current system we must progressively lie to ourselves to maintain the illusion of exponential growth.

In mathematics if one wishes to zero out a vector field you introduce a vector pointing in the opposite direction. We may be able to achieve asymptotically ideal money not via any single currency breakthrough but by the existence of competing currencies founded upon differing fundamental assumptions different vectors.

If we allow free flow of capital between these currencies capital can flow between them matching overall growth signaling with underlying reality. Perhaps ideal money will not be a single currency but the result of a dynamic competition between them.

I've thought a bit about this. If bitcoin was used as the default currency you can pay taxes in then banks would refuse to lend.. ie people with bitcoin would then become banks. You wouldn't want to loan your coins out? There will always be peaks and troughs in the market, so maybe during a downturn people loan coins for cheap (lower interest rates) while on uptrends the demand for loans picks up but at higher interest rates based on that demand. In general people want to HODL as they expect higher prices but there will still be lending available because people want to assure income through interest rates as lenders and borrowers want to always make more coin. Lenders know they will get their coins back so they will always lend with interest unless the borrower defaults (which is risk placed in the calculation of the interest rate to the borrower).

(This is my current thinking feedback is welcome)

Imagine for a moment coexisting large and liquid bitcoin and fiat markets in equilibrium. Given the option borrowers will prefer loans is a currency they have a reasonable expectation of repaying.

Along comes a major technological innovation that promises dramatic innovation and profits. Innovators seeking to capture this new market will need capital. Some will invest their fiat others will take out fiat loans and some will sell bitcoin. Overall the demand for bitcoin will decline relative to the demand for fiat. The signal transmitted through the cumulative system of monetary transmission (fiat and bitcoin) will be one of increased growth. Capital shifting from bitcoin to fiat increases the overall growth vector matching capital appropriately to opportunity.

Now imagine the opposite scenario of limited growth exhaustion of opportunities and economic consolidation. Fiat requires perpetual debasement which will continue with or without growth so individuals will sell productive assets who's future prospects require growth, take out fiat debts to by bitcoin (anticipating debasement without growth), and exchange fiat for bitcoin. The signal transmitted through the cumulative system of monetary transmission (fiat and bitcoin) will be one of reduced growth. Bitcoin is ultimately a zero growth vector. Capital shifts away from fiat decreasing the intensity of the growth vector.

In this way individual actors shifting back and forth between liquid markets can alter the behavioral vector introduced by money so that it matches underlying reality.

What is the difference between investing with bitcoin vs investing with fiat? One is closer to ideal money than the other and thus will win. They may work in harmony up to a tipping point where the preferred market instrument will take over due to higher transfer utility. You seem stuck in thinking that people cannot invest or will not invest with bitcoins. If the breakthrough is significant people will want bigger gains than what they would have been getting with btc.. if not then the breakthrough isn't big enough to justify large capital investments. Just as there is demand to hold coins over investing there is also likewise demand to lend bitcoins to high quality borrowers.

This brings us to the question of what is ideal money?

Ideal money is not something that just holds its value over time. Money is ultimately a signalling system. Like the nervous system it's function is to coordinate independent actors directing their activity appropriately across the fitness landscape of the world and the economy.

Bitcoin could certainly be an ideal money but it would be ideal money for a very specific society. Bitcoin would be ideal money for a society that was entirely or mostly static with limited or no technological progress and a stable population. In such an environment an entirely fixed supply of money would be ideal. It would allow stable transmission of value facilitating division of labor and coordination across the economy.

If we imposed a system like bitcoin upon a society with growth potential people would still invest, but they would not invest appropriately in response to economic opportunities. They would under-invest because a fixed supply of money creates a strong incentive against risk. With an utterly fixed money supply you receive a percentage of future economic growth simply by doing nothing. Only the most promising growth opportunities would receive investment and those with more marginal returns would be ignored. A bitcoin monetary system thus creates a strong vector against growth or in bitcoin lingo a HODL mentality.

Similarly a currency build upon the expectation of eternal exponential growth also runs into difficulties. Economic growth is unpredictable as it requires knowledge formation. Nothing grows exponentially forever there will always be periods of consolidation with limited or even no growth. Fiat does not allow for such periods as the entire system starts to collapse in a prolonged zero growth environment. This collapse is why society introduces artificial growth via government spending, central bank purchases of bonds, wealth redistribution and guaranteed incomes. All of these interventions are inefficient and inhibit growth.

It is impossible for any monetary system that requires either exponential growth (fiat) or is optimal in zero growth environment (bitcoin) to appropriately coordinate economic actors to a dynamically changing economy. To be ideal money a system must be adaptable across all future economic landscapes facilitating growth or inhibiting it in response to underlying economic opportunities.

It may be possible to approximate ideal money with some form of dynamic algorithm that changes in response to economic activity and population size but I am skeptical for this represents an attempt at top-down central planning coordinating the money supply via growth measurements or economic models. If we allow for dynamic competition between multiple currencies, however, we eliminate the need for accurate top-down omniscience. As long as the cost of converting from one currency to another is low future money does need to be a single uniform system. With a multitude of currencies to choose from (each based on differing fundamentals) actors would be able to move between currency systems depending on their economic needs and opportunities. This movement would alter the fundamental value of these currency options. The aggregate growth vector would become dynamically adaptable to all scenarios and thus appropriately coordinate actors across the broader economy (fitness landscape).

CoinCube
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1778
Merit: 1037



View Profile
January 20, 2017, 02:40:31 AM
 #2848

Edit: I think one of CoinCube's points is that anonymity is incompatible with the world moving towards global surveillance as part of the lurch towards transparency as collectivism (carrying along with it the usurious monetary system) tries to become more righteous, especially with Asia (Singapore model) leading the way.

I believe CoinCube may be thinking that if crypto-currency enables untraceable cash, then the governments will join together to ban it.


That accurately describes my views. Transparency will be painful.

Everybody Knows

iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 258



View Profile
January 20, 2017, 03:07:57 PM
 #2849

Btw, I didn't intend to imply we shouldn't protect women and children. If we see them in distress or in harm's way, we protect them.

My issue is about elevating that to a legal responsibility which then implies we are obligated to build a State apparatus with power to intervene in the parental issues, which has some very bad negative downsides.

I do not get along well with people who think we can fix things with the State, which can't be fixed with the State. But it doesn't mean I don't believe we should protect on a community and individual basis.

I hope that distinction is clear based on my prior points.
iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 258



View Profile
January 21, 2017, 03:07:42 AM
 #2850

My point is that nothing is a permanent fix and there is no absolute truth. There are competing strategies.

There isn't one order, ever.

Isn't the objective of competition to determine the optimal route?

Agreed. If we could know the absolute truth, there would be no point in life. Everything would already be predetermined and static. There couldn't exist any uncertainty.

And this is why community and individual based diversity of strategies for dealing with for example defection of parents, is more optimum. It allows for humanity to not entire fall into a Dark Age because of some incorrect strategy, such as I how I argued upthread that enabling a State-wide apparatus for inferring with the contract between parents and children is highly destructive.

Humans have emotions and instincts from their tribal heritage that in many cases can be Frankenstein outcomes when applied to the State-wide scope. And humans aren't very good at rationalizing this and realizing this, thus small scale failure is superior to large scale group think.

When increasing the scale of systems, we should also increase their decentralization. That is the only way phenomenon can scale.
molecular
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2702
Merit: 1011



View Profile
January 21, 2017, 06:05:28 AM
 #2851

Humans have emotions and instincts from their tribal heritage that in many cases can be Frankenstein outcomes when applied to the State-wide scope. And humans aren't very good at rationalizing this and realizing this, thus small scale failure is superior to large scale group think.

When increasing the scale of systems, we should also increase their decentralization. That is the only way phenomenon can scale.

These are amazing insights!

Now, how to apply this to bitcoin, specifically the "scaling" issue?

PGP key molecular F9B70769 fingerprint 9CDD C0D3 20F8 279F 6BE0  3F39 FC49 2362 F9B7 0769
CoinCube
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1778
Merit: 1037



View Profile
January 21, 2017, 06:05:46 AM
Last edit: January 21, 2017, 07:52:45 AM by CoinCube
 #2852

Btw, I didn't intend to imply we shouldn't protect women and children. If we see them in distress or in harm's way, we protect them.

My issue is about elevating that to a legal responsibility which then implies we are obligated to build a State apparatus with power to intervene in the parental issues, which has some very bad negative downsides.

I do not get along well with people who think we can fix things with the State, which can't be fixed with the State. But it doesn't mean I don't believe we should protect on a community and individual basis.

I hope that distinction is clear based on my prior points.


We agree that political power originates in top-down processes that attempts to quell human diversity and impose order. Power always seeks centralization.

We agree that issues are best solved at the level of the individual. Should that fail issues are best solved at the level of family then the local neighborhood. It is only after failure to contain destructive variance at the neighborhood level that we differ.

You argue that state interventions should be opposed on principle as power naturally grows beyond its intended purpose. In the case of child protective services you envision a progressive encroachment of the state into the family. In Orwell's 1984 children were encouraged to spy on their parents watching them for disloyalty. Parents were afraid of their children.

I acknowledge that state interventions have major downsides including the tendency to insidiously grow. However, I view such interventions as a necessary mechanism to temporarily contain the worst forms of human evil. Behavior that forces harm upon another against their will cannot be allowed to operate unchecked without damaging the fabric of society. In the the extreme example of a father who starves, sexually abuses, or mutates his children the state must intervene.

The ultimate role of the state is to restrain and mitigate destructive behavior. This is the states only purpose for existing. You might counter that the dangers of state power are too great that the cure is worse than the disease and that evil behavior should be addressed by the neighborhood or written off as nature in action.

You would cite the "Iron Law of Economics" highlighting the dangers inherent in state power. I would counter that we are not all slaves to Pharaoh so the "Iron Law" cannot be the dominant vector in society.

You would argue that nature cannot be top-down controlled and attempts to do so must ultimately fail. I would counter that nature can be temporarily restrained and then ultimately transformed via grassroots transformation of its character.

You would cite Natural Law is the ultimate arbiter of truth. I would counter that Divine Law supersedes Natural Law and compels us to a higher calling.

I understand your position and believe you understand mine. I do not believe we are going to reach consensus at this time.

iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 258



View Profile
January 21, 2017, 08:25:33 AM
Last edit: January 21, 2017, 09:11:34 AM by iamnotback
 #2853

I would not advocate that the State ignore the crime of sexual abuse, starvation, or physical enslavement of anyone, children or otherwise. I don't understand why you would equate my prior posts with such a ridiculous position. Leftists always use extreme hyperbole to support their failure of logic about why we must have State intervention in dictating morals (and realize then they achieve the indoctrination of immorality yet then you claim immorality is our #1 problem yet then you also follow a leftist stance of supporting State intervention, sigh).

I was writing about the imbalances caused by the State when it for example provides welfare for kids that both the mother and father create irresponsibly. This promotes them to do more of the same. I also pointed out that rewarding the mother and giving her an easy way out of her duty in a relationship, by demanding the father pay for everything when the mother may be taking advantage of the situation (for example if the mother has 3 children with 3 different other men besides the father who is paying support for the 2 kids he made with her)... that this promotes immoral behavior and destroys society. Also these child protective services become gulags against sincere parents, becoming some morality police that enforce morals and compliance with many things that even for example some conservative religions find abhorrent. And any power is ripe for abuse (as you know about my case, in which threat of abuse of that power lead to a very extreme and adverse outcome for a family).

You say you want a certain thing, but you haven't solved the problems with what you claim you want. Just look the other way and imagine the problems don't exist with what you white people want, then you wonder why you have a fucked up society. I am not saying that allowing rampant parental neglect is a solution either.

It is a major quagmire and that is why George Gilder is telling conservatives (see quote I provided upthread) that community and churches need to step up and stop relying on welfare and the State, which is not a solution.

What white middle class people want is for somebody else to handle the problem. They want to delegate it to the State. Then they wonder why the end up in dystopian outcomes.

But sometimes the problem is too complicated and impossible to solve. And so if dump it on the State, then we get all sorts of unintended bad effects also.

That is why I said, it isn't our responsibility. We try to do what we can where we can see we can do some good. Even Jesus couldn't fix all these problems, so certainly the State can't.

Leftists want to think they are God, but sorry to inform them that they are not. We simply can't always solve every social problem. Period.

I am not against churches organizing to go out and try to help children and families in distress. If the parents refuse, then there is a problem of needing force of child protective services to try to force some rescue. If the parents aren't feeding the child, are physically abusing the child, or are imprisoning the child, then I think that is criminal act, so the State can step in. But then problem is this becomes expanded to forcing the parents to send their kids to school (with schools indoctrinating kids with immorality and lies such as global warming), forcing the parents to immunize their kids (something like 20+ vaccines now given to youth these days), considering taking the kids away from the parents if one of the parents is using drugs, etc.. The child is nothing without parents, so even though that is an unfortunate fate, that is beyond the role of the State and only community (peer influence) can possibly do something about that which isn't more destructive than doing nothing.

Generally speaking, this is why white middle class conservatives move away from poverty stricken neighborhoods, to congregate with those who parents who take care of their kids.

I wish there was a solution but there isn't.

Any way societies are going to choose to let the State deal with the problem, so it is rather irrelevant what ever we say here.

The ultimate role of the state is to restrain and mitigate destructive behavior. This is the states only purpose for existing.

That is too simpleton. The State is the proxy we use to fight over our disagreements in society. The State is for organizing mutual self-defense. The State is how we organized labor and fixed capital in the usury regime for the Industrial Age. Etc..

Society is a very complex phenomenon.

The State rarely provides justice (so many who were also victims are also maimed). It provides the illusions that keep society going for a while until the illusions crash into reality.


P.S. Minanarchist Libertarians believe the State should be minimized and not try to take on duties which the private sector can provide outcomes for which are no worse. I thought at some times you have claimed you are a Libertarian. Any way, I don't really care what politics people choose. Nothing I say will make any difference.
CoinCube
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1778
Merit: 1037



View Profile
January 21, 2017, 03:35:36 PM
 #2854


I wish there was a solution but there isn't.


The solution is for people and humanity to gradually learn from our mistakes ultimately improving our behavior.

The best educator is consequence and the inevitable suffering it brings.

The role of the state is not to protect us from our bad choices.

The role of the state is to protect the innocent from the bad choices of others.

The state is failure personified.

At its best it is a bumbling and inefficient helper.

At its worst it is a bull in a china shop.

The best the state can ever do is to contain and limit fallout to the individual alone.

Most of the time it accomplishes far less.

CoinCube
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1778
Merit: 1037



View Profile
January 21, 2017, 06:06:07 PM
Last edit: January 29, 2017, 10:41:14 PM by CoinCube
 #2855

Interesting article in zerohedge highlights the role of debt in solidifying centralization of governance.

In Stunning Admission, Draghi Says A Country Can Leave Eurozone But Must "Settle Its Bill First"
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-21/stunning-admission-draghi-says-country-can-leave-eurozone-must-settle-its-bill-first
Quote
In a letter to two Italian lawmakers in the European Parliament released on Friday, and first reported by Reuters, Mario Draghi implied that a country could leave the euro zone - so much for "No Plan B" -  but first it would need to settle or debts with the bloc's TARGET2 payments system before severing ties.

"If a country were to leave the Eurosystem, its national central bank's claims on or liabilities to the ECB would need to be settled in full," Draghi said in the letter.

As Reuters confirms, the comment by Draghi is "a rare reference by Draghi to the possibility of the currency zone losing members." We would say not just "reference" but admission that a Italexit is all too possible, however the only way the ECB would allow it, would be for Italy first to pay its €357 billion TARGET2 bill (which various confused and clueless tenured economists over the past five years claimed would never be used by the ECB as a bargaining chip in "exit" negotiations and has no political implications; oops).

iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 258



View Profile
January 21, 2017, 08:52:57 PM
 #2856


I wish there was a solution but there isn't.


The solution is for people and humanity to gradually learn from our mistakes ultimately improving our behavior.

Competition of diverse strategies, because a monolithic top-down experiment is flirting with an extinction or megadeath event. Diversified failure is better than monolithic failure. This is Taleb's anti-fragility.

The best educator is consequence and the inevitable suffering it brings.

Precisely. Diverse competitions.

The role of the state is not to protect us from our bad choices.

Yet it does. Which incentivizes monolithic behavior.

The role of the state is to protect the innocent from the bad choices of others.

This only works well in very limited and clear cut cases.

In most situations, this turns into Frankenstein monolithic outcomes that kill the natural competition that is necessary for people to learn through the free market of diversified failure.

As a minanarchist, I support clear cut cases. For example, criminality as enumerated in prior post. I also mentioned today that I would support requiring all immigrants with a positive TB test to have undergone a certified DOT (doctor observed treatment meaning the doctor administers the drugs every week) for 6 - 9 months before they are allowed to immigrate to the USA. So we are stop importing multi-drug resistant strains. TB used to be nearly non-existent in the USA. Now it is coming back and with strains that can't be treated. This is fatal.

The state is failure personified.

Disagree. It is destruction of diversified failure and lumping it into monolithic failure. Not anti-fragile.

Taleb is much smarter than you or I. Maybe you should ask his opinion? I emailed him once and he replied.

At its best it is a bumbling and inefficient helper.

At its worst it is a bull in a china shop.

The worst is the end game inertia. Without exception. This is the lesson of Babylon.

The best the state can ever do is to contain and limit fallout to the individual alone.

Most of the time it accomplishes far less.

It accomplishes far worse always if given enough time to foment.
miscreanity
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316
Merit: 1005


View Profile
January 22, 2017, 05:22:19 AM
 #2857

And this is why community and individual based diversity of strategies for dealing with for example defection of parents, is more optimum. It allows for humanity to not entire fall into a Dark Age because of some incorrect strategy, such as I how I argued upthread that enabling a State-wide apparatus for inferring with the contract between parents and children is highly destructive.

Humans have emotions and instincts from their tribal heritage that in many cases can be Frankenstein outcomes when applied to the State-wide scope. And humans aren't very good at rationalizing this and realizing this, thus small scale failure is superior to large scale group think.

When increasing the scale of systems, we should also increase their decentralization. That is the only way phenomenon can scale.

Absolutely, but isn't that still a course toward an optimal solution (that solution being full decentralization)?
miscreanity
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316
Merit: 1005


View Profile
January 22, 2017, 05:25:29 AM
 #2858

Interesting article in zerohedge highlights the role of debt in solidifying centralization of governance.

In Stunning Admission, Draghi Says A Country Can Leave Eurozone But Must "Settle Its Bill First"
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-21/stunning-admission-draghi-says-country-can-leave-eurozone-must-settle-its-bill-first

Hotel California
CoinCube
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1778
Merit: 1037



View Profile
January 22, 2017, 05:32:24 AM
 #2859


 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 258



View Profile
January 24, 2017, 04:38:51 PM
 #2860

The "father of open source" writes about CoinCube's Contentionism:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=7303
Pages: « 1 ... 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 [143] 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!