Economic Devastation

[OROBTC]

...

coinits

Ha ha ha!  Yeah, that is clearly a more recent picture.  Made my evening.  I will now eat "Lomo Saltado" (here in Peru for our daughter's wedding) con mucho gusto tonight!  Thanks for the, erm, laugh!

TPTB

Thanks for sharing some code.  I will study it.  I like learning new tricks with SQL, I will see if I can get something out of it for my analytical sales database (alas, MS Access, as I am not a programmer, but I do write most of my good queries with their SQL option, a lot of the info I need can ONLY come by writing SQL not via their "wizards").

Also, TPTB, I have been more diligent about reading Armstrong's blog almost every day now.

*   *   *

I recommend Armstrong for anyone interested in liberty, freedom and economics/finance.  Note that he is very controversial and many people seem to hate him, I don't know why.  I can understand disagreement, but HATE?!?!?

http://armstrongeconomics.com/armstrong_economics_blog/

[vvv8]

...

Fake Hillary hand.  The real thing would be scummy and wrinkly.  People like her do not age well.  Dirty-up that picture a bit!

*   *   *

TPTB, my response re Flash Crash is on that other thread.  I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but if you read my response, you will note that I am quite hostile to ANY real totalitarianism, having experienced it myself in at least three countries as well as my granny having suffered BIG TIME in the late 1940s in Poland after WWII by the Reds.

CoinCube has a point re government, my inclination is closer to yours (less is better, my wording), but some .gov seems to be necessary to get some stuff done.  But, there is no doubt that we have been heading the wrong way a long time.

A small .gov supervised by an alert & well-armed populace.

rofl

[aminorex]

Strong antipathy for Armstrong is probably motivated by circumstantial evidence and signalling cues to the effect that he is a scammer of questionable sanity and competence.  I think that is unfair, although I do find some of his clearly established puffery distasteful - so distasteful that I have not, even yet, done appropriate diligence on his body of work.  Also, if his model is consistently proven to be highly predictive on an on-going basis, it will destroy a lot of deeply held, almost religious, views on market behaviour, and damage the incomes and reputations of of many financial professionals and academics.  I would enjoy seeing that.  Also he will have scooped me.  That would tick me off.

Cycles:

[CoinCube]

OROBTC, you are naive Marxist simpleton. Please learn to read. I doubt you will ever understand. Sigh. I give up. 

TPTB is there anyone in this thread who you have not yet called a Marxist idiot? 

The gorilla roar male chest thumping strategy loses its effectiveness when it is repeated in every post. 

[CoinCube]

Strong antipathy for Armstrong is probably motivated by circumstantial evidence and signalling cues to the effect that he is a scammer of questionable sanity and competence.  I think that is unfair, although I do find some of his clearly established puffery distasteful - so distasteful that I have not, even yet, done appropriate diligence on his body of work.

I have been (very slowly) reading through Armstrong's early prison writings. Like you I have not researched his model yet.  Armstrongs knowledge of history is extensive, some of his opinions are a bit off. So far my initial tentative impression matches that of Fedwatcher from the link Wekkel provided a few pages back.

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

I have followed Martin Armstrong's writing for years. He has built a non-emotional computer model called the Economic Confidence Model and it is driven by cycles that have been running for thousands of years. It is very good.

However, when Martin writes about what he thinks "Should Be" it is based on him also being a trader in foreign exchange, equities, debt, and physical assets. "One Dollar of Capital" changes the rules of the game in ways that he may not like.

There are facts and there are opinions. Martin is very good in describing historical facts but he is often on the wrong side regarding opinions. One must remember that his paying clients are the rich and powerful.

[rpietila]

OROBTC, you are naive Marxist simpleton. Please learn to read. I doubt you will ever understand. Sigh. I give up. 

TPTB is there anyone in this thread who you have not yet called a Marxist idiot? 

I don't remember being called both of them in the same sentence.

Is that true? 

[thaaanos]

CoinCube,

My points are irrefutable.

I do not believe they are. However, to go further we will need to take this discussion to a more technical level and clarify some terms.

Please provide your definition of entropy.

Here is mine: the information you dont have access to.

[TPTB_need_war]

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Government will always be corrupt; freedom only comes from reducing not reforming government
Date:    Sat, April 25, 2015 11:58 am
To:      "Armstrong Economics" <armstrongeconomics@gmail.com>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


I surrender on educating my highly abstract (higher-order generality, generative essence) conceptualizations. The result is no different than if I was writing in the Klingon language. It is pointless here because it is well known that most humans can’t think in abstractions. My bad (mea culpa) for trying to share or teach conceptualizations that readers don’t have the capability or inclination to understand.

Since it seems my upthread generative essence logic is incomprehensible to mainstream minds (perhaps aminorex or other very high IQ lurkers might be excluded, and since I don't yet have free time to compose a well structured essay to try—ostensibly in futility to—overcome the cognitive dissonance), I will attempt to raise this discussion down to the primates’ “primitive, post-paleozoic, hunter-gatherer”, hindbrain Twitter soundbite level of reasoning which I surmise commentators here seem capable of semi-cognitively consuming.

CoinCube’s primative folk illogic (i.e. not based on any rational generative essence but we can’t go there because of the incapacity to comprehend) writes that we should err on the side of caution because of the tail-risk that anarchy (a.k.a. free markets, high entropy, or autonomous freedom) could become unstable or otherwise cause great harm if wasn’t balanced with top-down control.

Nevermind that CoinCube doesn’t seem to appreciate that the math that free markets anneal to a plurality of decentralized, top-down control as demanded and supplied by the people in a continuously self-adjusting, highly resilient system (i.e. no tail-risk of collapsing to 0 entropy in a Dark Age as governments do). That generative essence entropy discussion will fly right over his head, at least perhaps until I take the time to make the presentation irrefutable (but even then it might be futile, so I may not even bother because I have more important work to do on actually providing solutions that we all need). One reason that readers have this cognitive dissonance is because they conflate the power wielded by corporations in the capitalist system with free markets in general. Yes it is true that the Industrial Age required large stored monetary capital and only a very small component of individual knowledge capital, thus power was naturally centralized amongst those who could enslave society with money. But the Knowledge Age changes the natural outcome of the free market, because the incentives are realigned by the fact that the primary cost of production has become the indivdual’s knowledge.

But wait. There is a simpleton argument I can make. Did CoinCube ever bother to contemplate what about the everyday risk of the top-control control doing harm well before any totalitarian collapse rather just as a normal outcome of the inalienable fact that centralization of power/control (is a power vacuum that) attracts to the positions of power/control those who will abuse power?

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/04/25/just-us-its-a-business-exploiting-others-for-personal-gain/

The Ohio Project Innocence has won a victory where men have finally been released holding the record for the longest wrongfully held – 39 years. In 1975, ...

In a prosecution of Italians, this one guy subpoenaed his own phone calls from prison which are all taped. By mistake, they gave him is co-defendant who had turned to be a “rat” I listened to the tape where the prosecutor was telling the rat he needed him to testify against someone else as well. The rat said he did not know that person. The prosecutor replied, “don’t worry, by the time I am done with you, you will know him like he’s your brother.”. The tape was given to Judge Kaplan. He ruled it was irrelevant for that was a different case even though it was the same rat testifying against him. You quickly realize, nothing is real and the press supports the system for they just regurgitate whatever the government tells them.

When there is no means to defend yourself or your property, the game is over – it is checkmate. Society cannot function when there is no means to address corruption. That is where the United States now stands.

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/04/24/police-do-not-rat-on-police-neither-do-judges-richard-owen-above-the-law/

Police misconduct is everywhere and nobody seems willing to prosecute any officers for outright murder. This same code of protecting their own exists even more so among judges. After watching the “The Forecaster”, many people are shocked at how Federal Judges are totally out of control, sending emails commenting on new articles appearing on Judge Richard Owen. Far too many judges believe they are some demigod...

Can a simpleton even understand it is insane to hand the keys to sociopaths? And if you build a government more populous than your Dunbar limit, the sociopaths will populate it. How many examples do you need from 6000 years of recorded human political-economic history?

Why can’t OROBTC and most simpletons comprehend that the sociopaths you can’t see because the government is more populous than your Dunbar limit, who are lurking and in control of the government, will offer to prosecute and attack scapegoats to keep you appeased while they retain the control behind the curtain. Reform is always a lie. For example, it was a lie even when Napoleon promised to liberate after the French Revolution. The banksters have always been in control of collectivized government behind the scenes and always will be.

It would be a lot more productive and beneficial to all of us, if we move on with creating the technological solutions we need and stop wasting our time trying to change deeply ingrained (even willfully ego driven, stubborn) cognitive dissonance.

[thaaanos]

You have to understand that decentralized experimentation is extremely resilient and can not spiral into total destruction of information. If you show me you are putting on your thinking cap and being more open minded to reason, then I will explain to you analytically why this is the case. It has to do with the fact that spread of local experimentation encounters friction when propagating to global change (e.g. individual taste and circumstance is a friction), i.e. local degrees-of-freedom don't convey probabilistic global information; whereas, the incentives in top-down, collectivized control is self-reinforcing to 100% global coverage, i.e. the friction reduces over time. Moveover it is because the universe has no external vantage point and everything is relative, thus there is no way to define the distinction between information and noise on the whole.

In the evolutionary error threshold theory thought-experiment (not real world, and really just masturbation junk science), the hypothetical (not real world) mutation rate is ramped up from centralized, top-down control. In the free market, no one can say whether the information is being created or destroyed because there is no absolute point to measure from.

What you need to understand, that iexperimentation doesnt matter, if you have succesfully reached the optimal, you need to defend it.
After experimentation comes implementation, and if you fail you are wiped out. And this is what efficiency is all about and this determines who persists. So here comes the whole collectivism charade...

Even in networks the paths that have less friction are chosen regardless of the connectivity ( dof), Eventualy patterns that achieve efficiency records will be replicated and thus lower entropy even if the number of nodes is high and connectivity is high. Agents will always try to maximize efficiency not entropy, even in the knowledge age.

Information is neither destroyed neither created

There is the information content of the environment, there is the information an agent knows about the environment, there is the information an agent knows about itself, there is the information the agent doesnt know about the environment (environment entropy) and there is the information about itself an agent doesnt know (internal entropy), *so entropy is in the eye of the beholder, not actual quantity anyways.* do we agree on this?

[rpietila]

When there is no means to defend yourself or your property, the game is over – it is checkmate. Society cannot function when there is no means to address corruption. That is where the United States now stands.

Can a simpleton even understand it is insane to hand the keys to sociopaths? And if you build a government more populous than your Dunbar limit, the sociopaths will populate it. How many examples do you need from 6000 years of recorded human political-economic history?

This simpler writing style is much more appealing to me. Unless you want to restrict your audience to be very few, I exhort you to cultivate the skills to write at about this level.

[OROBTC]

...

Attn: Fellow Marxists Idiots / Simpletons / Other Suboptimals

Clearly very smart people don't need to bother with Dale Carnegie courses and all.  Besides, you will all be taken care of when Al Gore and George W. Bush have finished with you all with Michael Rupperts' program.

Now get your worthless asses back to work back!

The Management

[TPTB_need_war]

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Post-industrial era is going to be amazing!
Date:    Sat, April 25, 2015 2:17 pm
To:      "Armstrong Economics" <armstrongeconomics@gmail.com>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

You have to understand that decentralized experimentation is extremely resilient and can not spiral into total destruction of information. If you show me you are putting on your thinking cap and being more open minded to reason, then I will explain to you analytically why this is the case. It has to do with the fact that spread of local experimentation encounters friction when propagating to global change (e.g. individual taste and circumstance is a friction), i.e. local degrees-of-freedom don't convey probabilistic global information; whereas, the incentives in top-down, collectivized control is self-reinforcing to 100% global coverage, i.e. the friction reduces over time. Moveover it is because the universe has no external vantage point and everything is relative, thus there is no way to define the distinction between information and noise on the whole.

In the evolutionary error threshold theory thought-experiment (not real world, and really just masturbation junk science), the hypothetical (not real world) mutation rate is ramped up from centralized, top-down control. In the free market, no one can say whether the information is being created or destroyed because there is no absolute point to measure from.

What you need to understand, that iexperimentation doesnt matter, if you have succesfully reached the optimal, you need to defend it.
After experimentation comes implementation, and if you fail you are wiped out. And this is what efficiency is all about and this determines who persists. So here comes the whole collectivism charade...

Even in networks the paths that have less friction are chosen regardless of the connectivity ( dof), Eventualy patterns that achieve efficiency records will be replicated and thus lower entropy even if the number of nodes is high and connectivity is high. Agents will always try to maximize efficiency not entropy, even in the knowledge age.

Information is neither destroyed neither created

There is the information content of the environment, there is the information an agent knows about the environment, there is the information an agent knows about itself, there is the information the agent doesnt know about the environment (environment entropy) and there is the information about itself an agent doesnt know (internal entropy), *so entropy is in the eye of the beholder, not actual quantity anyways.* do we agree on this?

You are drawing me back into the high IQ, generative essence discussion. I doubt this will be productive for most readers, but I will oblige you briefly in hopes of perhaps making a breakthrough in mutual understanding.

It is true that before the Knowledge Age, the economic incentives (i.e. “efficiency” in your incorrect nomenclature — most economic != most efficient) in the free market were aligned towards a consolidation of stored monetary capital, and since we know the (Max Weber’s canonical definition of the) State controls legal tender through its monopoly on force, this enabled the stored monetary capitalists and State to collude against the People (e.g. oligarchies, monopolies, regulatory capture, etc). The capitalists and the government officers are populated by sociopaths due to the incentives of the power vacuum of control/power we give to our representative government, and we even have a DEEP STATE now behind the curtain for example funded with $trillions that Donald Rumsfeld admitting was missing from Defense budget on the eve of 9/11 (with all evidence and investigators so conveniently destroyed at the Pentagon the next morning by the airplanemissle impact).

However, the Knowledge Age alters the fundamental incentives because production will require predominantly the individuals knowledge and not stored monetary capital. And this knowledge is not transferable nor aided by finance, i.e. knowledge production (not static knowledge but the creation of new knowledge) is not fungible the way manual labor is (see my quoted essays below for the reason).

Autonomous actors in the free market in the Knowledge Age will attempt to maximize their knowledge, but therein is the more crucial distinction from the Industrial Age. An individual can not buy nor take with force another individual’s knowledge. The reasons are explained below in the quotes of my essays.

The only way to aggregate more knowledge in the Knowledge Age is to leverage the knowledge of other experts, i.e. maximizing the division-of-labor.

Knowledge capital will still be non-uniformly distributed (and perhaps even power-law distributed as for monetary capital due to difference in hypermotivation of A-listers compared to B-listers), but the crucial distinction is that it can’t be used as means of theft with force on the collective.

Sorry your ideas are antiquated now and must be retired. Stop being a dinosaur!

Path of least resistance, i.e. most degrees-of-freedom, is not necessary the most efficient even though it may be the most economic. This is because Coasian barriers create economic incentives which are misaligned with maximum efficiency. The 2nd Law of Thermo tells us that the trend of entropy is to maximum, thus efficiency is precisely that which holistically maximizes entropy. Any other definition is hopelessly specialized and insufficiently general.

Discussions about entropic frame-of-reference, referential transparency, and closed systems will have to wait because that is going to require me to get much deeper than I want to write today.

Nonsense on information being conserved. The universe is trending towards maximum entropy. Changes in entropy are generally an irreversible process. Energy is conserved but efficiency increased or decreased. That proves my definition of efficiency. ▮Q.E.D.

See the pre-Knowledge Age was enslaved by energy conversation. Unlocking unconserved information growth enables the exponential scaling of network effects.

The world is about to change so dramatically that is going to blow your fucking mind! That is why the old world is dying into a one-world reserve currency enslavement paradigm. It is toast. The Knowledge Age is going to obliterate it.

OROBTC you are really wasting your time with your archaic value of gold.

One reason that readers have this cognitive dissonance is because they conflate the power wielded by corporations in the capitalist system with free markets in general. Yes it is true that the Industrial Age required large stored monetary capital and only a very small component of individual knowledge capital, thus power was naturally centralized amongst those who could enslave society with money. But the Knowledge Age changes the natural outcome of the free market, because the incentives are realigned by the fact that the primary cost of production has become the indivdual’s knowledge.

My thesis is that the Knowledge Age (we are leaving the Industrial Age) reduces the demand for stored monetary capital and increases the demand for stored knowledge capital. The Industrial Age (which is moving towards 0 or negative profit margins in China) required large amounts of fixed capital investment, thus a high demand for stored monetary capital. The factory worker and factory engineer are economically insignificant compared to the NAV capital costs of the factory infrastructure.

Whereas the high profit margins are moving towards the knowledge production sector (software programming, marketing, etc). The Industrial Age is dying economically and along with it will die the demand for stored money. The larger the capital, the less effectively one will be able to invest it with a positve ROI.

Thus we don't need crypto-currency to be a reserve currency. Let the oligarchs (and the socialist sheeople/masses) have their reserve currency and enslaved nation-state governments. That is all part of the process of that paradigm dying.

The Knowledge Age will rise with competing crypto-currencies.

Bitcoin will not "winner take all". I guarantee you that.

Instead of playing into the elite's goals with his Solutions Conference. Armstrong as a programmer should be helping us to create crypto-currency solutions.

Specifically the way to counter the worse effects of the one-world currency are to study my writings about the Knowledge Age which were linked from the opening post of this now 45 page forum thread.

You will probably need a week or two of studying the thread slowly.

I will be the first to admit I needed a week to fully absorb the following works of AnonyMint.

The Rise of Knowledge
Understand Everything Fundamentally

Together these are quite simply the most insightful piece of economic theory I have ever read.

If the author is right and I think he is we are all in the midst of a tragedy of epic proportions.  It is sad unstoppable and will devastate the lives of much of humanity.

The fundamental theme is summarized in my latter essay about "Thought Isn't Fungible":

http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html#Thought_Isn%27t_Fungible

The Industrial Age relied on large economies-of-scale for manufacturing, which meant that fixed capital investments and NAV calculations sufficed for investment. The world was structured around a fixed return on capital model. This meant that large capital could find economies-of-scale for investment.

The Knowledge Age destroys all that! Big passive capital becomes dumb and impotent. Active capital (actual knowledge) is required in the Knowledge Age.

Thus those who invest in the reserve currency unit-of-account are in a dying paradigm. That one-world currency and eventual failure of the nations into a one-world government will be paradigm of death and eugenics (exactly as predicted in the Bible).

What is rising to take its place is...

The only solution to this problem is for the Knowledge Age to rise and say "I don't need stored monetary capital, I need knowledge". I will quote from myself about this as follows.

The Rise of Knowledge

Financeability of Knowledge

As explained in the “Economy of Knowledge” and “Energy of Knowledge” sections, knowledge doesn't exist now if it isn't dynamically adaptable in the future. The only systems in nature which can do this, are those that are composed of autonomous agents without top-down control, e.g. ant colonies, the neurons and synapses of the human brain, free markets, and unregulated social networks.

Due to aggregating and concentrating capital via an interest rate, as opposed to dispersing and scattering capital, finance mathematically must over time reduce the quantity of autonomous decisions (at least decisions about who receives funding to produce). Thus if financing were the predominant long-term trend, knowledge could not be.

The more potential energy in the knowledge capital, the more priceless it is sell its future. There are knowledge producers such as the creator of the open-source software movement, who absolutely refuse to work at any price where they don't have sufficient ownership of their knowledge, so as to prevent limitations of its potential future use. Due to the transactional cost Theory of the Firm which provides for the economic existence of the corporation, corporate capital accumulates by defending or increasing the transactional cost between otherwise autonomous knowledge producing actors. Thus increasing corporate control of knowledge is the antithesis of increasing knowledge. Knowledge can only increase by increasing the autonomy of the knowledge producing actors. This tension is depicted graphically.

Thus, finance and corporations are inherently ownership centralization paradigms. Whereas, knowledge ownership can not be centralized without destroying it.

For example, if a corporation purchased a huge library of software modules or books, written by different authors, the managers could create nothing with this without the authors (or others) who are knowledgeable of these modules or books. If these authors were not already organically interacting, then they would not be able to at any price, unless there was interoperability knowledge potential enumerated by some knowledgeable person(s). Thus always the knowledge is owned by the knowledge producers. When a knowledge producer is gone, the knowledge previously produced is destroyed, if it was not adopted by another sufficiently knowledgeable producer.

The Inverse Commons explains that unlike sharing of hard resources, the sharing of knowledge increases the value of the shared knowledge. Current knowledge becomes more valuable as it gains more future potential uses, and only autonomous knowledge actors can maximize diverse use cases of interoperability.

Software has minimal financing requirements, e.g. one or two humans with computers can write software that launches a $millions start-up. I did this once or twice by myself with no employees (e.g. CoolPage.com by 2001 if in Shadowstats inflation-adjusted dollars).

Knowledge Investing

Since the ownership of knowledge can't be transferred with money, financing incurs the risk of guaranteeing knowledge to spontaneously create itself where it did not already exist. No level of guaranteed interest rate can compensate for this lack of knowledge in the act of financing. What attracts savers to be passive capitalists is the economy-of-scale, where the due diligence effort (i.e. knowledge production) applied does not rise significantly with the amount saved (i.e. loaned) at interest. The collective politics will guarantee (insure) the return by debasing the money as necessary to pay for the lack of knowledge production— another evidence that financing is a centralization paradigm because knowledge can't be owned with money.

Whereas, equity investment has no guaranteed return and requires knowledge production.

“Equity investments” that are based on consistent dividends, are essentially a low knowledge production investment decision with a semi-guaranteed return similar to financing. It is instructive to note that as of 2008 “No stockholder has made a real inflation-adjusted penny in equity in Coca-Cola in 46 years.”.

Passive capitalists will find it nearly impossible to venture into high-tech knowledge investing, because they necessarily must approach it from the financing perspective, as their objective is to deploy large quantities of capital passively, i.e. to approach the theoretical constant marginal utility of gold. For example, Buffett's BYD (which makes electric cars) investment has performed poorly. A scientifically knowledgeable person knows that the energy-density of batteries is not ROI competitive with petrol.

One general rule for investing in knowledge production, is to invest close to what you know well. Because knowledge is inherently local and autonomous. If there is some popular investment theme, then it must have a very low relative knowledge production— the extreme case is depositing money in the bank, where the depositor doesn't even care how the money is invested.

The creator of the open-source software movement enumerated some business models that apply to knowledge production. The general concept is to not own the preexisting base of knowledge (it is always owned by the individuals and can't be transferred with money), rather to create a market for the services of the preexisting knowledge producers. In short, top-down fund some incremental advance in knowledge production and own the market for it. Remember that in the Theory of the Firm, corporations only exist where there is a transactional cost (barrier) to the autonomous knowledge producers achieving the same market organically. So the key is to identify these market barriers and invest to solve them.

Passive capital is financing those hard resources in the internet space, e.g. the massive server farms that serve the billion users of Facebook and Google, funded by collecting ad revenue rents on all internet activity— an implicit attempt to make knowledge capital subservient. Yet given the non-autonomous top-down control of thousands of knowledge producing employees, and the requirement to defend the transactional cost that sustains the corporate profit, Facebook and Google can't produce software diversity fast enough to service all the features that users want. Diversified software start-ups will flourish.

[TPTB_need_war]

P.S. anonymous who corrected me and caused me to admit she is correct, is an extremely high IQ, fellow X-gen female (neurobiologist) whom I met when commenting online in 2005 about immigration reform. Who is the misogynist? I call a spade a spade.

I just this year finally saw her pic; she is attractive and very sporty in Colorado.

I now agree with you that the coming "wars" will mostly be propaganda. This is a circus show for the masses to drool over.

The actual bloodshed will be much more limited than the millions killed in WW1 and WW2 (or % wise the Civil War), because minds can now be won with always-on media, and the brunt force approach is not as efficacious.


anonymous replied in email:
> He doesn't admit to problem reaction solution or apparently thesis, antithesis, synthesis and its well established historical role in geopolitical theater.  Only an intellectual lightweight wouldn't be able to discern 9/11 was a false flag attack, stemming from a long history of false flag attacks (particularly well documented is Gladio).  Of course, as far as PRS goes, false flag scenarios are only the tip of the iceberg yet highly illustrative given the clear motives and rapid evolution.  In a similar way, Princes of the Yen was rather instructive showing contained examples via relatively rapid monetary policy shifts.
> It can't even be said that Armstong's thinking is anachronistic, it's more profoundly limited than that - wearing pinhole glasses and a mindset that caters to the infantilization of society (babies wanting their pablum and paternal security).
>
>
>
>> Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 08:46:05 -0400
>> Subject: Marty (Armstrong) is fooled by the propaganda war in the information age

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Marty is fooled by the propaganda war in the information age
Date:    Thu, April 23, 2015 8:46 am
To:      "Armstrong Economics" <armstrongeconomics@gmail.com>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

...

[TPTB_need_war]

Excellent you killed my boner!  

That captures well the decadence of the baby boomer generation at this stage and the impending death of the Industrial Age system including pensions and all that.

Hey now it is time to grow up and stop quoting the person who was replying to me in order to pretend you don't toggle ignore to read my posts.  

Come on man, you are apparently a reasonably smart and creative person. Ego won't help you at all. There are so many examples where you were disproportionately offended.

You will lose the bet.

Sir Richard is one of them. He is their poster boy. He has already front run the coin and I have shown you the hard evidence even though they scrubbed it. You accuse others of not reading yet you do the same. Bitcoin is their baby. Bitcoin was not created by one individual named Satoshi Nakamoto. Bitcoin was created by DARPA and I can prove it

...

So there you have it. Quit denying what is right in front of you. I have shown how they are going to denote it and it will be worth trillions, perhaps more.

You can not stop it. It is coming full steam ahead. I am out to grab as much as I can and just before they reel it all in I will tune out and disappear into the hills.

I do not see anything about the derivatives bubble popping nor BRICS nor rehypothecated gold. I think that the derivatives fraud is the lit fuse to spread the contagion like a wildfire in tinder dry conditions.

I did allude to that. See the underlined text below:

While Armstrong is a smart man and seems to have made some timely predictions, I think that he is out in left field with some of his rants.

Readers here is a link to his amazing predictions that were correct. Armstrong was even born in a house with the street address number of 3.14 (Pi π).

[TPTB_need_war]

CoinCube,

My points are irrefutable.

I do not believe they are. However, to go further we will need to take this discussion to a more technical level and clarify some terms.

Please provide your definition of entropy.

Here is mine: the information you dont have access to.

If that data is irrelevant to a particular actor’s contribution to maximum entropy then it is not information.

See the Industrial Age required us to have information about political collusion of stored monetary capital that we couldn’t have because of the Dunbar limit, but the Knowledge Age renders that data irrelevant and thus destroys that information while replacing it with exponential growth of information with network effects.

Entropic frame-of-reference is a deep topic. I am not going to try to do a comprehensive essay on it today. I need a lot of thought time to make sure I cover it from every possible perspective and nuance.

[TPTB_need_war]

OROBTC, you are naive Marxist simpleton. Please learn to read. I doubt you will ever understand. Sigh. I give up.  

TPTB is there anyone in this thread who you have not yet called a Marxist idiot?  

Yes the female neurobiologist. Well she isn't exactly in this thread, only I quoted her.

The fact that most all people today are Statists (a.k.a. Marxists) even if they don't admit it to themselves, is why the world is headed into a tempest.

The gorilla roar male chest thumping strategy loses its effectiveness when it is repeated in every post.  

You wish, but the fact is it is very effective. Men only respect someone who can dunk on them at will. I guarantee you Coinits will never forget me and I also guarantee you my legacy some years from now will be, "damn he was correct, we could have listened".

Calling a spade a spade is very honest and admirable way to conduct oneself.

(I do make mistakes of course and I acknowledge those who point them out)

I am very willing to be amicable and I love to joke around and am very friendly and loving to people in general. But here we are having a serious discussion about political-economics amongst men who claim to be very interested in this very important topic (at this juncture especially).

This is serious.

[thatbluedude]

concerning accessibility, imo maybe you¹ should write a short piece that covers the most obvious² angles of attack concerning the knowledge age. When it's coming, "what about bridges, hospitals, microchips, steel mills...". These obvious² problems make it very easy to quickly disregard it as a crackpot idea.

1 or coincube like before
2 for average people

<highly speculative babbling pulled from my ass >
concerning armstrong && knowledge age; You have expressed frustration that he "doesn't get it".He (and probably his average client) is old and clever enought to allocate his funds in knowledge age resistent ventures. Might it not be more of a "not my (generations) problem/fight" thing?

[TPTB_need_war]

TPTB

Thanks for sharing some code.  I will study it.  I like learning new tricks with SQL, I will see if I can get something out of it for my analytical sales database (alas, MS Access, as I am not a programmer, but I do write most of my good queries with their SQL option, a lot of the info I need can ONLY come by writing SQL not via their "wizards").

Here is a somewhat tricky query I wrote last night in a groggy/M.S.-foggy state-of-mind. Haven't actually tested it yet, but I think it is correct. It employs join that will be NULL to indicate the WHERE clause is true, i.e. it is using double-negation logic.

Code:

   // Retrieve some to relay
   $sql =
      "SELECT r.MsgId, m.Text, t.Cellphone, t.FirstName AS `To`, f.FirstName AS `From` \n".
      "FROM relay AS r \n".
      "INNER JOIN msg AS m USING(MsgId) \n".
      "INNER JOIN user AS t ON t.UserId = m.ToUserId \n".
      "INNER JOIN user AS f ON f.UserId = m.FromUserId \n".
      "LEFT JOIN (SELECT MsgId, ByUserId, FromUserId, ToUserId FROM relay INNER JOIN msg USING(MsgId) WHERE RelayedDate IS NOT NULL) AS d ON \n".
      "(d.ByUserId  = '". $user_id ."' AND d.ToUserId = m.ToUserId AND d.FromUserId != m.FromUserId) OR \n". // ByUserId relayed to same user from a different user  (IS NULL: ByUserId should not retrieve these)
      "(d.ByUserId != '". $user_id ."' AND d.ToUserId = m.ToUserId AND d.FromUserId  = m.FromUserId) \n".    // Not ByUserId relayed to same user from the same user (IS NULL: only ByUserId should retrieve these)
      "WHERE \n".
      "  r.RelayedDate IS NULL \n".       // not relayed
      "  AND m.IsRead = 0 \n".            // not read
      "  AND m.IsDeletedByToUser = 0 \n". // not deleted by recipient
      "  AND t.CarrierId = '". $query->quoteable($_GET['CarrierId']) ."' \n". // note CarrierId could have changed to NULL since record was added to relay
      "  AND d.MsgId IS NULL \n".         // IS NULL:
      "ORDER BY m.CreationDate ASC LIMIT ". $num_retrieved;
   $query->query($sql, __FILE__, __LINE__);

Also, TPTB, I have been more diligent about reading Armstrong's blog almost every day now.

*   *   *

I recommend Armstrong for anyone interested in liberty, freedom and economics/finance.  Note that he is very controversial and many people seem to hate him, I don't know why.  I can understand disagreement, but HATE?!?!?

http://armstrongeconomics.com/armstrong_economics_blog/

He is hated for different reasons.

1. He agrees with me that the hard-money (goldbugs, fixed money supply, no fractional banking, etc) folks are clueless.

2. He promotes "reformed" Statist "solutions" to the current crisis which include a one-world reserve currency outcome.

3. His economic cycles model is always correct and trumps the banksters. For example, he taught the Japanese corporations how to hedge against the New York banksters.

Etc..

[TPTB_need_war]

Strong antipathy for Armstrong is probably motivated by circumstantial evidence and signalling cues to the effect that he is a scammer of questionable sanity and competence.  I think that is unfair, although I do find some of his clearly established puffery distasteful - so distasteful that I have not, even yet, done appropriate diligence on his body of work.  Also, if his model is consistently proven to be highly predictive on an on-going basis, it will destroy a lot of deeply held, almost religious, views on market behaviour, and damage the incomes and reputations of of many financial professionals and academics.  I would enjoy seeing that.  Also he will have scooped me.  That would tick me off.

His ECM model has already proven it is highly predictive. I watched it predict the 2011 high in gold+silver, and it has predicted the coming low in them too. And many other correct predictions, some I have observed before they came true such as the prediction (first seen several months before) for oil to close at the exact price it did for the end of 2014. And current predictions are coming true as well:

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/04/25/updating-the-markets-the-key-is-the-corruption-that-will-make-the-turn/

Armstrong agrees with the coming Knowledge Age but he doesn't yet agree that it will transform political economics. Thus he still clings to reform of government as the only way to avoid the worst of outcomes.

His reform proposals are all somewhat logical (although entirely impossible to achieve before the current system crashes and burns) if you remove the possibility of the Knowledge Age to change the everything. His proposed "solutions" would be the only option in that case.

Armstrong doesn't agree with me (and my female neurobiologist email mate) that there exist globalists who are driving us towards a NWO. He thinks the powers-that-be are clueless idiots along for the ride.

[TPTB_need_war]

TPTB, my response re Flash Crash is on that other thread.  I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but if you read my response, you will note that I am quite hostile to ANY real totalitarianism, having experienced it myself in at least three countries as well as my granny having suffered BIG TIME in the late 1940s in Poland after WWII by the Reds.

CoinCube has a point re government, my inclination is closer to yours (less is better, my wording), but some .gov seems to be necessary to get some stuff done.  But, there is no doubt that we have been heading the wrong way a long time.

A small .gov supervised by an alert & well-armed populace.

I replied there:

Indeed, TPTB, this guy may just be a fall-guy or merely one of many involved.  Not all of the facts are in, still.  And they certainly were not all in when I started this thread.  It has taken "just" five years after all under our pal Obama´s administration just to get this far.

OROBTC, the problem is that you trust anything that is written by government. That you believe anything from a government larger than your local white wooden church that doubles as a makeshit townhall, makes you a Marxist/Statist sheeople. The facts will never come out from the government. Don't you understand everything is propaganda?

Turn off the news and turn off the TV.

It is all lies. All of it. Will never be fixed. Never. The solution is only to be found in the free market as I am explaining in the Economic Devastation thread.