Economic Devastation

[coinits]

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 to be controlled. I surmise they feel life just couldn't be fair 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 common set of rules (one size can't fit all situations, which is why a jury of peers was the closest to fair 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 interactions with them, not some abstract rule or concept of people you will never meet and thus have no adequate understanding of.

I could write a book about this. There is far too much to cover in forum posts...

...interesting topic.

FIXED

[TPTB_need_war]

Let's rewind back to that upthread example that launched this side discussion several pages upthread, wherein the 28 year old man was sentenced to 18 years in prison for allowing for others to upload repugnant photos, then running another website to offer to take down the photos for a fee.

The justification for the harsh sentence is two-fold:

1. If you did that to my wife or daughter, I would be extremely angry.

2. So many people were harmed, thus the punishment should match the aggregated level of harm.

My rebuttal is:

1. What would you think of your wife or daughter if they were participating in such repugnant acts?

2. Let's employ King Solomon's wisdom. How about every person that claims to have been egregiously harmed must show up to court every entire day for the trial for a period of a month. If they are unwilling to put in that effort, then we can surmise that they were not harmed as much as they claim.

I assert that #1 you would be angry at your wife or daughter. And #2 that those who feigned great harm, would flake out, because they are just making a mountain out-of-a molehill and trying to make the State be a replacement for their irresponsibility, and destroying a young man's life on a stupid (youthful) mistake. I think what he did is borderline free market activity and the extortion allegation is weak, because someone could post the photos again to another site and on and on. The actual flaky behavior began with the victim and they are the most responsible.

I am nearly certain in #2, they would flake out, because they were irresponsible to begin with. People demonstrate a pattern of behavior.

It is always easy to gang up using the State to do it for you. But if you have to do yourself, then suddenly it ain't so easy and reality sets in.

The Europeans (and now the Americans) used the State to obfuscate and do their crime for them (stealing from each other). The level of crime didn't decrease. The State is just an obfuscation for human nature. The powers-that-be know that human nature is inherently a mix of evil and good, so they pitch an obfuscation of perfect good which is inherently also allowing everyone to still do sanctioned (legal) evil. It is no wonder that at the end-game, the perfect love erupts in horrific evil acts.

I don't need a middle man (powers-that-be) ramming his coercive dick up my ass. Let the evil and good into the free market and deal with it more transparently and proximately.

The generative essence paradigm of the problem is we are so quick to react emotionally and not think rationally and critically.

While we humans think we can see everything objectively with some fixed, involuntary rules, we forget that truth is relative. Here follows an example. Is the cat climbing up or trotting down the stairs?

[TPTB_need_war]

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Armstrong's numerous errors
Date:    Fri, April 10, 2015 12:51 pm
To:      "Armstrong Economics" <armstrongeconomics@gmail.com>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/04/10/feds-ability-to-create-money-from-thin-air/

Consequently, QE1-3 failed to produce inflation because ... the increase in money supply was not confined to the domestic economy.

...

However, that will flip the other way for interest expenditures will exceed defense by 2020 and with a uptick in interest rates, then you will see STAG-inflation.

Inserted "STAG-" to correct Armstrong's thought error or typo. Actually it will be much worse than stalled economy and we need a new term such as IMPLOSION-FLATION. It is going to be a sitesight to behold on Marxist (Mr. Georgia Guidestones) Teddy Turner's CNN. My popcorn reserve is stacked. Btw, the reason the inflation will finally come domestic is several fold (and Armstrong didn't articulate this correctly): 1. Higher taxes will be required to fund the interest payments and businesses pass these costs along as higher prices. 2. The higher interest payments mean more of the national debt will be paid into the domestic economy. 3. When the Fed was buying 30 years Treasuries, the lower interest rates enabled a carry trade borrowing dollars and lending into foreign economies with higher interest rates. This is why most of the QE ended up overseas. When the interest rates reverse direction, so will the carry trade, which will send massive flow of capital into the USA driving inflation. But this will also make a strong dollar, which will choke off the real (such as export) economy. QE did create inflation abroad, but this was absorbed as an acceptable rate of annual inflation, because there was such incredible untapped productivity increases in the developing world. The powers-that-be had retarded the developing world for decades. It did create a massive dollar-short position for the rest of the world, which is going to collapse the rest of the world as the USA starts raising interest rates.

Edit: Armstrong did write about a shift to more CONFIDENCE in the USA, and sentiment being the overriding factor:

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/04/01/inflation-will-begin-with-higher-interest-rates/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/03/31/impact-of-higher-rates/

[libertad]

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Armstrong's numerous errors
Date:    Fri, April 10, 2015 12:51 pm
To:      "Armstrong Economics" <armstrongeconomics@gmail.com>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/04/10/feds-ability-to-create-money-from-thin-air/

Consequently, QE1-3 failed to produce inflation because ... the increase in money supply was not confined to the domestic economy.

...

However, that will flip the other way for interest expenditures will exceed defense by 2020 and with a uptick in interest rates, then you will see STAG-inflation.

http://kwout.com/cutout/m/38/bg/yjb_bor.jpg

Inserted "STAG-" to correct Armstrong's thought error or typo. Actually it will be much worse than stalled economy and we need a new term such as IMPLOSION-FLATION. It is going to be a site to behold on Marxist (Mr. Georgia Guidestones) Teddy Turner's CNN. My popcorn reserve is stacked. Btw, the reason the inflation will finally come domestic is several fold (and Armstrong didn't articulate this correctly): 1. Higher taxes will be required to fund the interest payments and businesses pass these costs along as higher prices. 2. The higher interest payments mean more of the national debt will be paid into the domestic economy. 3. When the Fed was buying 30 years Treasuries, the lower interest rates enabled a carry trade borrowing dollars and lending into foreign economies with higher interest rates. This is why most of the QE ended up overseas. When the interest rates reverse direction, so will the carry trade, which will send massive flow of capital into the USA driving inflation. But this will also make a strong dollar, which will choke off the real (such as export) economy. QE did create inflation abroad, but this was absorbed as an acceptable rate of annual inflation, because there was such incredible untapped productivity increases in the developing world. The powers-that-be had retarded the developing world for decades. It did create a massive dollar-short position for the rest of the world, which is going to collapse the rest of the world as the USA starts raising interest rates.

Is Armstrong predicting a rise in the dollar and gold simultaneously?

[TPTB_need_war]

Is Armstrong predicting a rise in the dollar and gold simultaneously?

Yes, but realize all the rest of the world's currencies will be falling against the dollar, thus they would see a rising gold price even if gold was constant against the dollar, and this along with the collapse of the rest of world (due to sovereign/shadow banking debt contagion in Europe/Japan/China + from QE the massive short dollar debt position in entire world) will drive the rest of the world into private assets such as gold and Bitcoin after 2015.75. And since Americans will see gold going up, they will buy it too.

Armstrong has often made the point that people form too simple of domestic currency relationships in their mind and they need to factor in the effect of exchange rates and capital flows.

I am already inside of Armstrong's mind (after reading and listening to basically everything he has ever written or spoken that is on the internet) and I can often think as he would about a question.

P.S. see the image of the cat on the stairs I added upthread on this page.

P.S.S. Hillary tweeted that she will announce Presidential candidacy on Sunday. I tell you she will the totalitarian dictator and will be the last "elected" POTUS[1]. Just note some of the things she has said, "what difference does it make" (when she was lying about her coverup of her role in assassinating our diplomat in the Embassy), "we need camps for adults", etc.. Hillary is so deep into corruption[2] that she will have to be totalitarian in order to contain the onslaught of bottom-up (anarchistic) transparency that is going to be coming at her of the coming years. My theme has been that thirty-party activity will rise but be thwarted in the mainstream political and judicial institutions by the powers-that-be and thus it will become increasing break-away activity that fractures the USA.

[1]

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/09/11/will-the-usa-also-break-up-into-regions/ http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/12/26/224-collapsing-wave-structure-point-to-breakup-of-usa/ http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/05/29/will-the-usa-break-up/ http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/04/05/political-dark-side-of-2016-obamas-intent-to-bring-war/

[2]

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/04/02/hillary-commits-a-crime-they-defend-her/ http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/03/17/the-majority-are-just-fools/ http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/03/11/politicians-are-just-politicians/ http://globalelite.tv/2014/01/10/4-videos-of-politicians-confronted-about-bohemian-grove-that-make-you-say-wtf/ http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/09/03/john-bolton-v-lindsey-graham/ The rumor is they used Lindsey Graham threatening him because he is gay and if he did not strip Americans of all rights, he would be exposed. http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/03/13/lindsey-graham-total-nut-case/

[Wekkel]

I am interested how the battle between Armstrong and Denninger will turn out on the One Dollar of Capital debate.

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=229998
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=230006

[CoinCube]

Anonymint you believe the state will always collapse into megadeath and tyranny.
You believe this outcome is inevitable and that a large and sustainable state cannot ever exist.
You arguments are strong but they all spring from the basic premise that the state is always the greater evil.

This is the fracture point where we fundamentally disagree. It is a disagreement regarding what is possible.

There is no doubt that your condition has held true historically. It is also is true regarding our current trajectory in the west. It does not logically follow that it must be true for all future incarnations of the state. If your critical premise is false your multitude of subsequent arguments unravel as does your justification for defending the indefensible.

Any collectivized resource above our actual Dunbar limit at the level of deep scrutiny (which means rougly a dozen or so people) will be corrupt. Thus the only altruistic goal is to eliminate all collectives larger than that.

Your goal is to destroy all collective institutions larger then a dozen people. It is a goal that naturally arises from your first premise. It is impossible to completely achieve but if it somehow could happen it is synonymous with only two outcomes.

1) The extinction of humanity
or
2) A return to primitive tribalism

I could never trust you, given your emotional delusion. One day you will snap and go against me.

I would not ask you to trust me. You assume my opposition is due to emotion and cognitive dissonance when it is far more fundamental and profound.  

We are natural ideological opponents united for a time by a shared enemy and mutual revulsion of our current system.

So carry on. Like I said you have my unconditional support....  for the time being anyway  

[TPTB_need_war]

http://blog.mpettis.com/2015/02/when-do-we-decide-that-europe-must-restructure-much-of-its-debt/#comment-123301

Suvy, if I understand your rebuttal correctly, you are asserting that majority of the cost in the post-Industrial Age is not the mental work that it takes to produce each product per my example of how my fixed investment and personal expenses were insignificant relative to the revenue I generated when I created CoolPage, but rather the long gestation period from my birth to the age where I could do that work.

Thus you appear to be arguing that there is still a huge fixed capital investment in the development of human capital.

I can prove you are wrong in two ways.

1. Illiterate, isolated African children were able to teach themselves how to program Android within 5 months with nothing other than laptops that didn't even need electricity, i.e. they had a hand crank generator.

2. During the time I was programming CoolPage, I was also supporting the gestation of two children born 1996 and 1999, and this expense was an insignificant fraction of the revenue I generated when I created CoolPage.

Sorry, you will just have to accept that mental productivity trumps finance now and thus your models must change. My seminal Rise of Knowledge essay is apropos and will become canonical.

[TPTB_need_war]

...

There is no doubt that your condition has held true historically. It is also is true regarding our current trajectory in the west. It does not logically follow that it must be true for all future incarnations of the state.

And you claim to be a research scientist? Refusal to accept the predictive power of results of a reproducible experiment repeated ad nausea for the past 6000 years— is delusion.

Any collectivized resource above our actual Dunbar limit at the level of deep scrutiny (which means rougly a dozen or so people) will be corrupt. Thus the only altruistic goal is to eliminate all collectives larger than that.

Your goal is to destroy all collective institutions larger then a dozen people.

You have this perennial habit of conflating orthogonal issues in order to sustain your delusion.

Note I was very careful to distinguish between involuntary and volutary collectives. I would never want to eliminate voluntary trade and cooperation/interaction in communities larger than dozens of people. All the problems arise from the involuntary coercion that removes the self-annealing feedback loop from the free market thus enabling corruption and totalitarianism to grow without bound until the cancer kills the host.

It is a goal that naturally arises from your first premise. It is impossible to achieve...

1) The extinction of humanity
or
2) A return to primitive tribalism

It is not implausible (maybe impractical though) to achieve. We only need technology that makes it possible for all things we need to be achieved via trade instead of involuntary collectives, and also the technology to render collective coercion impotent. In short, individual empowerment technology.

But it will never be absolute for perpetuity, because technology is always changing and the government has access to technology also.

But we must always continue improving and fighting for individual empowerment technology. If we stop, then the human race will go extinct.

...but if it somehow could happen it is synonymous with only two outcomes.

1) The extinction of humanity
or
2) A return to primitive tribalism

Nonsense. Voluntary trade and communion would expand. Prosperity would expand. Happiness would expand. Coercion would decrease. Life would be much improved if not for you delusional Marxist sociopaths who want to use coercion and control us (i.e. enslave yourself and everyone else too). But I am not going to beg you, because my programming fingers are mightier than my english text.

I could never trust you, given your emotional delusion. One day you will snap and go against me.

I would not ask you to trust me. You assume my opposition is due to emotion and cognitive dissonance when it is far more fundamental and profound.  

We are natural ideological opponents united for a time by a shared enemy and mutual revulsion of our current system.

So carry on. Like I said you have my unconditional support....  for the time being anyway  

It is fundamentally insane. And I rescind my request for your support. Stay far away from me and I will do the same, unless you can fix your insanity then we can try explore synergy.

I never trust delusional people who think there are (even delusional hope for) sustainable merits in collective coercion. These are the most dangerous people on the planet. They can't just do individual harm (a serial killer can't kill millions of people), but they are ideological sociopaths that can wreck the lives of millions of people. They often appear to be so caring, similar to Hitler. The most dangerous ones are the ones who believe their principles are profound, e.g. Hitler.

CoinCube, I read your quote of Katz about sticking to principles, noted that you dug in your heels about your delusion, and yes I am attacking your principles as being profoundly insane. This pains me because I know you somewhat personally as a caring person. Unfortunately in my opinion (my logic as expressed above) there is something bipolar-like sociopathy going inside your subconscious rationalizations of your emotional insecurities. As best as I can surmise, it appears you are afraid of losing community or maybe again it is really just a control freak underlying addiction (a la Stockholm Syndrome). It is difficult to pinpoint your motivation for these principles. Perhaps you can figure out your underlying psychological genesis. Sorry to go ad hominem but frankly totalitarianism is driven by key influential ideologues because the pen is mightier than the sword. You were trained in the education system to be an intellectual. Remember you believed in Anthropogenic Global Warming when I first met you on these forums. I opened your eyes on that. Apparently the indoctrination you received is too deeply engrained now. If you forsaked it, you would be throwing away decade or more of your efforts.  Hey I lost 9 years to a neurological illness that could have been cured in a month if not for the BS the corrupt collective coercive medical system did to hide that information from me. I hope you come to your senses, but I know deeply engrained emotionally-based (versus rationally-based) principles are almost impossible to change late in adulthood.

[aminorex]

1) The extinction of humanity
or
2) A return to primitive tribalism

Then 2 is the goal, but these are definitions.

Large organizations are useful.  They form frequently, ad hoc, in p2p networks, because there is law (implemented in code) which creates a system of incentives establishing a positive-sum game.  Like BitTorrent, DACs can aggregate resources.  The question is how many painful vacuua will remain and for how long, when the state collapses, and how long until they can be filled by DACs.  The transition will not be managed, and will create opportunities for other systems to seize ground, which may not even exist today.

[CoinCube]

1) The extinction of humanity
or
2) A return to primitive tribalism

Then 2 is the goal, but these are definitions.

Large organizations are useful.  They form frequently, ad hoc, in p2p networks, because there is law (implemented in code) which creates a system of incentives establishing a positive-sum game.  Like BitTorrent, DACs can aggregate resources.  The question is how many painful vacuua will remain and for how long, when the state collapses, and how long until they can be filled by DACs.  The transition will not be managed, and will create opportunities for other systems to seize ground, which may not even exist today.

aminorex we agree.

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. Rapid and uncontrolled collapse of the state leads to a very real risk of extinction.

As for how to accomplish this controlled decline? That is where I am still very much searching for ideas.

[TPTB_need_war]

I am interested how the battle between Armstrong and Denninger will turn out on the One Dollar of Capital debate.

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=229998
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=230006

Someone please send my rebuttal to that obnoxious, pompous, Dunning-Kruger boomer Denninger. I had debated him in email several years ago. Pray inform him Shelby Moore III wrote this.

I explained upthread in more detail that there is no inherent evil in leverage and Armstrong is correct that leverage is absolutely necessary for the economy to expand and contract with maximum acceleration and deceleration in rhythm with the business cycle.

Both of those guys are incorrect! And for different reasons!

Denninger is incorrect because his proposal for no leverage means the speculators can't do price discovery optimally, hedge, and otherwise harmonize the non-linearity in finance to the non-linear (chaos) realities in the real world. Futures and options contracts have existed since 6000 B.C. (as Armstrong documented with the clay slates recording such contracts). Farms could not maximize production of our food if they could not hedge in the commodities options (futures) markets. And you can't have debt and futures if you don't have leverage. Denninger just failed non-linear math, e.g. differential equations and Black-Scholes pricing model (a.k.a. implied leverage). Denninger blames corruption on leverage; whereas, the corruption is an opaque banking system (central bank, hidden mark-to-market, etc).

Armstrong's point is that if we trust the authorities to do their job correctly and honestly, then all fractional reserves are under control of the regulators and thus there is no uncoordinated printing out-of-thin-air. That is bullshit, because top-down collective coercion is always corrupt and more saliently it is always blind.

Because as I explained numerous times that only the free market of autonomous actors can self-anneal because unless the speed-of-light was infinite then a top-down observer would never have perfect proximate information in real-time whereas proximate actors do (both on the time  and the path dependencies divergence domains), but if speed-of-light was infinite then the past and present would collapse into an infinitesimal point in time, i.e. the universe could not exist.

Thus Armstrong's error is that a top-down, collective coercion can not be reliably transparent (over the long-term).

The optimal free market solution in theory is of course the one I already explained.

[CoinCube]

It is fundamentally insane. And I rescind my request for your support. Stay far away from me and I will do the same, unless you can fix your insanity then we can try explore synergy.

I never trust delusional people who think there are (even delusional hope for) sustainable merits in collective coercion.

TPTB I will honor your request to stop replying to your posts out of respect for your work and your contribution.

I would point out only that you have erected a strawman. I never said that there are sustainable merits in collective coercion. Please see my reply to aminorex above for my opinion on this matter.  
 
 

[TPTB_need_war]

As for how to accomplish this controlled decline? That is where I am still very much searching for ideas.

See my prior post about the Denninger and Armstrong debate. See also my last rebuttal to Suvy about how fast humans can adapt to technology and the low relative costs of adaptation.

And you need to learn to relax and trust the free market when the free market has the tools to escape the collective coercion. When it doesn't have the tools, then the decline will be a waterfall collapse into the killing fields abyss.

Bottom-up adaptation is geometrically more accelerated than top-down adaptation.

TPTB I will honor your request to stop replying to your posts out of respect for your work and your contribution.

More optimal would be to reform or explain where I had a misunderstanding of your philosophy.

I would point out only that you have erected a strawman. I never said that there are sustainable merits in collective coercion. Please see my reply to aminorex above for my opinion on this matter.  

Your reply to animorex came after my rebuttal to you. And you specifically stated before that you had hope that the repeating outcome of collective coercion end games could be improved. If you are now changing your stance, that is great to hear. But I am still wary because once again in your reply to aminorex, you again don't trust the free market to self-anneal and you are searching for top-down ideas to implement. I assume intellectually selected, large-scale collectivized solution that can be trusted because it is known apriori, not a plurality of competing bottom-up ideas to implement such as multiple anonymous altcoins leaving the outcome to the free market to decide.

[rpietila]

What's the optimal Myers-Briggs?

Actually I expected that, and was surprised no one had called my bluff on that.

Yet only said that Judging is bad.

Anyway I don't know this methodology at all but the test was easy, and I got INTP. For what it's worth, let it be known. Likely the true practitioners could have deduced it anyway concerning me if they were interested.

[sidhujag]

What's the optimal Myers-Briggs?

Actually I expected that, and was surprised no one had called my bluff on that.

Yet only said that Judging is bad.

Anyway I don't know this methodology at all but the test was easy, and I got INTP. For what it's worth, let it be known. Likely the true practitioners could have deduced it anyway concerning me if they were interested.

INTP here too

[TPTB_need_war]

...I got INTP.

I am ENFP, but very close to balanced between T and F. I am very strongly N, 88%. My extroversion is obvious, lol. 50,000 forums posts in past 10 years?

I am a good programmer, perhaps even phenomenal, except my one Achilles heel is isolation makes me mentally unhealthy. I need the extroversion. Btw, I launched my new site (business) today.  

Note I was more introvert in terms of this large scale social group interaction when I was doing my greatest accomplishments in programming from mid-1980s to 2001. It took its toll on me in terms of exploding with losing an eye.

My best balance will probably come from having local, daily social interaction coupled with introversion for 8 hours a day in programming. Need to really jack up my athletics too. Starting to get back to form. Being running daily in the hot tropical sun at midday, also 100s of pushups. Starting to feel more normal and not yet 2 weeks into the high dose vitamin D3. The MS symptoms still return but milder and sometimes I feel phenomenal. Feels to me like gradually healing the brain lesions and neurological function. You can't understand how debilitating headaches and dizziness from the MS. Strange feeling I never could conceive until I had it.

Probably I went into overdrive on posting to a forum because I was countering the MS depression. Extroversion in overdrive. I need to tone it down now. And get back to what made me productive.

P.S. I want to reiterate again that CoinCube is a very respectful and caring person. It pains me to speak frankly about trusting the free market. But if I didn't speak frankly to him, I don't think I would be caring.

[CoinCube]

More optimal would be to reform or explain where I had a misunderstanding of your philosophy.

My response to aminorex above succinctly summarizes my opinion on the matter.
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.

I do trust that free markets will self-anneal eventually given enough time.
I obviously don't believe they anneal nearly as quickly as you do.

[TPTB_need_war]

The alternative is the State will waterfall collapse into the abyss killing fields. So you better pray the free market succeeds. Otherwise your worst fears will come to roost.

You think the State will slowly decline? Hell no. The end game is always a waterfall collapse into the abyss. Only free market frontiers provide for the adaptation. Without it, welcome to Dark Age. (I am being dramatic because we face something very difficult and it will require some really Herculean innovation to get us through this)

You are just coming at it from an emotional attachment to collective order as being good enough. Collective order is a mass murder paradigm (at the cyclical end game).

We've got a few years perhaps until 2018 or 2019. Maybe we still have enough time (but it is getting into late innings). Individually sovereign private assets (gold, Bitcoin, altcoins) won't kick into highest gear until after 2017.95 with the peak in the influx into the dollar and USA assets (that is 2015.75 + 8.6/4). They should bottom soon @ ≈2015.75.

Looks like Hillary Clinton will be POTUS during this descent into war which the War Cycle predicts to begin in 2017. By 2018 we are going to be descending into hell. War, USA economic collapse, and potential pandemic.

In short, the State can't help you. Only we can.

An alternative viewpoint is that Asia will bottom in 2020 and rise while the West falls over the cliff from 2020 to 2024. But maybe that is because the free market will succeed. Maybe we are destined to succeed.

Former (Jewish?) IRS Commissioner and the man who wrote much of the tax code law, said to (Jew) Aaron Russo (producer of Bette Midler, The Rose, Trading Places, etc) in Ashkenazi Jewish Yiddish language, "nothing will help you". Skip to the 37 min point in the linked video.

...

Nick Rockefeller told Aaron Russo what the goal is.

[CoinCube]

You think the State will slowly decline? Hell no. The end game is always a waterfall collapse into the abyss. Only free market frontiers provide for the adaptation. Without it, welcome to Dark Age.

I believe that a gradual reverse followed by the slow decline of centralization would be far superior to total collapse. However, for all the reasons you mentioned this might not be possible. Achieving a reversal would require the education and awareness of a critical mass of the population. That is a very tall and perhaps impossible hurdle to clear.

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.

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.  I accept anonymous decentralized cryptocurrency as a potential if somewhat desperate answer. It is certainly much better than doing nothing and waiting passively for centralized collapse. However, I remain (perhaps naively) hopeful that a superior solution can be found.

We have officially beaten this tangent to death. I propose letting this thread return to the the topic of Economic Devastation