Economic Devastation

[1aguar]

1. Most of the debt is owed to the people (e.g. entitlements), so the people can discharge the debt and then there is no need to postpone the settlement.

2. My proposal does not lack such an appeal, it is just that you have not looked into the lawful money which is referenced in 12 USC 411 and supported in other citations of US Federal law (as described in links already posted).
Kindly read the links and study this subject in detail, for therein is contained the remedy for this whole situation. I will link you to my first post in this thread:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355212.msg12109249#msg12109249

1. In which case, they would not receive the capital they otherwise would.

2. A law code does not enforce itself. (E.g., the steele whereupon the Code of Hammurabi was inscribed did not, itself, physically beat the violators of that law code.)

1. Not so; like any other debt, an entitlement can be discharged by release of the people's credits back to the debt-issuer via indorsement, alongside the acquisition of that debt which is effectuated as an exchange or set-off for the credits so released; for details, see the banking flow chart in the HJR 192 folder which is referenced in this link from the same blog.
For more details, contact me in private; this is a work in progress, but I am NOT the only one.
Another example: If you have already made "payment" on a debt with a debt note, then you can retrieve that "debt-payment" after discharging the initial debt by simply claiming it back via the tax collection agency. Then, you simply "re-process" the claimed payment and endorse it for discharge again.

2. Correct; it is the gov that enforces the law. The US gov is required to uphold the law of war (usufruct) in any emergency. The people set up a Constitution for the US gov (corporation) so that they could control the gov; the gov cannot work outside of that law (charter), so it must enforce that law. As long as you are classified as an "enemy" (debtor), you will not have any rights in the conqueror's State of Emergency, but when you stand in the right capacity and stand with the truth, then you can assert your remedy and have it enforced by the de jure (lawful) authorities.
A great history review of these matters is found here, see the front-page story: http://www.phoenixsourcedistributors.com/950307.pdf

[1715181997]

1715181997

[1715181997]

1715181997

[1715181997]

1715181997

[TPTB_need_war]

One-standard-deviation increase in childhood general intelligence (15 IQ points)
decreases women’s odds of parenthood by 21–25%... dysgenic fertility among women is
predicted to lead to a decline in the average intelligence of the population

...

In regards to dysgenic fertility in high IQ women I believe this will also prove to be a transient phenomena. Right now we are living through perhaps the most profound shift in natural selective pressure since the development of agriculture 8000+ years ago. In 1960 the birth control pill was approved by the FDA. Since that time women who wish to control their fertility do so and women who do not desire children do not have children. This is unprecedented in human history and represents a profound shift in selective pressure from males to females. We have decoupled sex from reproduction and in doing so have displaced male success at sexual relations as the primary driver of human evolution. Today the primary driver of human reproduction is the desire of women to have children. A substantial portion of the female population is not adapted to the new environment and are in the process of selecting themselves partially or completely out of the gene pool. After a few generations this will leave us with a population that prioritize children and I believe that the trend towards dysgenic fertility will dissipate.

High IQ men that mate with average IQ women, often produce high IQ offspring so it doesn't really matter if the high IQ women select themselves out of the gene pool.

The men drive evolution. That is why we feel the urge to impregnate many women.

I read that most men in certain parts of Asia have Genghis Khan's genes.

If the State wasn't dictating to men that they have to give up an arm and a leg for each child they produce, men would be much more reproductive.

Sometimes I feel I haven't done my duty to plant more children (only 2 thus far that I know of), but seeing the outcome with the first two has put a brake on my enthusiasm about planting more.

[TPTB_need_war]

I mean it's obvious, but looks like it's only me who understands basic logic, reason, and scientific method.

Its always obvious to the Dunning-Kruger confidence.

i`m out of this thread, looks like i cannot reason with people here

Thank you God. You indeed work miracles.

Let me tell you the real problem.

You said you were leaving  

Earlier you said the real problem is low IQ people. Now you say it is centralization. So if only high IQ run the world, then centralization is the only possible outcome. So why are you bothering to even talk about what can't be fixed in terms of your logical basis.

That should give you a strong hint that your logical basis is flawed.

Scientific method is something you appear to not understand well. You quote a correlation between IQ and personal income. First of all, you should learn that correlation doesn't imbue causality, i.e. there can be other factors which may be at play and the correlation may not hold in every scenario past, future, and circumstantially. Secondly, if low IQ people are more numerous (hey its your assertion not mine!) then mathematically a higher number of lower income people can potentially have more economic impact thant a lower number of higher income people.

Things like that is where you diverge from reality. And there are many, many more instances where you've run aground and apparently didn't realize it.

[TPTB_need_war]

Joseph Stiglitz on Greece's new memorandum:

“Deep-seatedly wrong” economic thinking is killing Greece

Among the puzzling aspects of the MoU are demands for reforms on things seemingly trivial as milk. While pensioners are eating out of garbage cans, the troika has been haggling over how old a carton of milk can be if it is to be labeled “fresh.” Stiglitz observes that if you look closely you see that special interests — in this case the big dairy companies of Holland — appear to be behind the reforms. Dutch milk sellers would prefer that their milk, which travels long distances to reach Greece, be allowed to call itself fresh — a move that will only hurt local dairies. By discouraging local production, the MoU paves the way for even more Greek unemployment and less demand for goods and services — hardly a recipe for economic health. (The chairman of the Eurogroup , it may be worth noting, is Jeroen Dijsselbloem, the Dutch Finance minister).

http://ineteconomics.org/ideas-papers/blog/joseph-stiglitz-deep-seatedly-wrong-economic-thinking-is-killing-greece

I told you the NWO plan is a the largest capitalists trying to eliminate competition as the Industrial Age sinks into irrelevance.

Everyone needs to jump ship from that sinking top-down morass into the individually autonomous (grass roots, bottom-up) Knowledge Age.

Our ability as a nation to decide about ANYTHING ended the moment our elected government decided that would be a disaster if we leave the EU. Maybe they know better; but that's not what people elected them for. 

...

Everyone needs to jump ship from that sinking top-down morass into the individually autonomous (grass roots, bottom-up) Knowledge Age.

macsga, always democracy is a power vacuum. And thus yes the elite will take control...

The only way I can see to avoid that is to use technological innovation to remove the need for consensus... Soon we will have this technology.

[TPTB_need_war]

The Theory of the Firm can be explained from one perspective with the erroneous theory that knowledge creation can be duplicated and redundant thus managers play an important role of making sure there are backup employees in case one gets sick, leaves, or otherwise fails.

We've needed corporations to aggregate work, because for example you don't build Mozilla Firefox with one programmer. You need a large team.

This is why I was working so hard on solving the Expression Problem for computer programming language (which I think I've solved and will be working on after I finish the crypto work), because with true modularity (no need to refactor), then programmers can work on their own smaller modules and then other programmers can combine modules into large programs. This is the Holy Grail of programming yet to be achieved.

In any case, the point is knowledge creation is becoming more autonomous, e.g. the 3D printer and 3D printer designs for download. You used to need a corporation to accomplish what you can now do individually.

Whereas if you review my essay linked from the opening post of this thread, I argue that knowledge creation is accretive, spontaneous, and the property of the creator, thus it can't be tied to money or physical value. Knowledge creation is like an end-to-end principled network in that middle men (Theory of the Firm) can only obstruct it.

More generally and abstractly what is happening is that we are becoming more specialized and thus the trend to maximum division-of-labor is intact. The problem with the maximum division-of-labor is that in the Theory of the Firm, this gives the corporation all the control and profits because the various specialists can't sell their skills independently into the final market and have to be bundled by the corporation into a final product.

rpietila, I moved our discussion about theory of change activism in money systems, and username18333 on the applicability of his Great Empire of Hyperaccelerated Redistribution Theft™ anti-money altcoin, to the Economic Devastation thread which is more apropos.

Even Karl Marx understood that the system of social structure was a result of (and not the cause of) the mode of production driven by technology (a.k.a. "natural science"). He eloquently stated that the mode of production shifted over time due to changes in the underlying technological "forces of" production. He explained that what he meant by capitalism is the "modern bourgeois society" which he certainly meant those who could aggregate more capital in the power-law distribution simply because they had more capital.

Karl Marx did not state that the reason for this rise of monetary capitalists is because the Industrial Age can be financed with usury because industry (e.g. factories) require high fixed capital investments, with amortized rates of return. And thus industrial society can not produce without concentration of monetary capital. And thus capitalists are then able to capture the government and write off usury defaults to the public backstop, because in an industrial society production is too big to fail because it does not incorporate Taleb's anti-fragility thus investments in production overcommit to egregious estimation errors because there is a contagion effect of increasing debt to stimulate demand and production. In short, the entire industrial system is doomed to corruption by its very technological nature regardless what social structure is attempted to build on top of it.

Whereas, in the opening post of the Economic Devastation thread, CoinCube has cited my writings on the theory that the Knowledge Age inverts the control over capital, because knowledge creation (not preexisting knowledge consumption per se, although learning is diversified especially if autodidactic undirected and thus a form of innovative knowledge creation) spawns chaotically and unpredictably, thus can not be control by monetary capital. It is the changes in technology which have enabled individuals to directly "sell" (trade) their knowledge creation into the market of demand for knowledge creation, and stepping out from under the control and reason for existance of the corporation in the Theory of the Firm, that is destroying the utility of excessive quantities of stored monetary capital, because it is implausible to convert these large stores of capital to efficient production of knowledge. This is the why the old world industrial capitalists are creating a new world order of totalitarian control in order to try to hang on to their power which is being fundamentally eroded by technological shift to the Knowledge Age.

I believe I am the progenitor of the concept and term Knowledge Age in this context.

I have argued to rpietila that the technological struts (e.g. anonymous internet and anonymous money for trading and including micropayments scaling which Monero can't do) have to be in place before the change will occur and that his religious activism is counter-productive.

I have argued that username18333 makes the same mistake that all communists and socialists do, in that they can think by force of destroying freedom by stealing from some to give to others that they can change the underlying forces of production. One day I will need to take the time to read all of Marx to understand how he ostensibly transitioned from a correct statement of reality in the Preface to such a horrific killing field of Communism.

P.S. I am the former AnonyMint, the creator of this Dark Enlightenment thread.

We humans can work on technology that alters those implicit constraints. That is about all we can do to effect change. Education is a total waste of time, because people will naturally anneal to the implicit constraints (humans are very adaptable).

In the Industrial Age, the most economic meant aggregation of capital (factories and labor) because production required large economies-of-scale. Thus the Theory of the Firm (top-down management) applied. As well, capture of the State by the capitalists applied, because these were all the most economic outcomes. The people were fed the delusion of democracy because this was the most economic (for them and for the capitalists). But I tell you even the capitalists know they are trapped by the one-world NWO and they don't like it. Their ROI is diminishing and they know it.

My point all along has been the Knowledge Age alters the implicit economic constraints, because it removes those requirements (benefits) for economy-of-scale beyond the groupsize of the individual. The larger entities will be less agile and thus a liability in the Knowledge Age.

The monetary system we got was the one that fit the implicit economic constraints.

What will get in the Knowledge Age is what is most economic in the new paradigm of implicit economic constraints.

It would be much more productive use of your time to analyze what the implicit constraints are and model the free market outcome, than waste your time being repulsed by your ingrained preferences (which frankly I think are just FUD any way). And yes your beloved Statism was a free market outcome of the Industrial Age (and prior). And that is why socialism thrives at this end game, because people correctly blame the free market, but without realizing that it all is changing in the Knowledge Age if they would only adapt (but their ears and eyes are covered).

The Knowledge Age threatens to alter the implicit economic constraints radically.

It has nothing to do with their understanding of money.

Micropayments are the only way certain business models could function. There is a huge economy that doesn't happen without micropayments. We will never remove the Sybil attacks on Tor without micropayments.

The generative essence is that the maximization of the division-of-labor trend requires increasing granularity of transactions.

This is an inexorable trend. For example, 1000s of years ago one had to carry around a slap of Iron to make a payment. This required payments to be coalesced supporting the Transaction Cost Theory of the Firm (which is antithetical to the maximum division-of-labor and its End-to-end Principle implication).

The argument against micropayments was the cognitive cost places a lower bound on the transaction size, but this cognitive decision process can be automated for the user. For example, I join a dating site and agree to pay 1 cent per message I send, thus I only make this cognitive decision once for all micropayments I do and this eliminates the need for a CAPTCHA or some other intrusive means of preventing spam (a form of Sybil attack).

It is precisely because of this cognitive load that non-micropayments can't scale to maximum division-of-labor. How many experts can you reason about to pay $100-$1000 each for some service? But let's say you can automate by agreeing to pay 1 cent per research paper accessed then you can preview unlimited experts without cognitive load on each transaction.

Micropayments monetize the Gift Economy of the Knowledge Age. This is what Reddit and Doggie Coin were all about. Without that monetization, the Gift Economy devolves into corporate sponsorship of those with reputation which all that centralized evil of the Transaction Cost Theory of the Corporation.

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).

Citing special cases of localized efficiency doesn't vacate my assertion (and informal proof) that generalized, global efficiency is the maximization of entropy. Over the long-term systems self-organize (anneal) to prioritize global efficiency by eliminating Coasian barriers.

So sorry your view is too simpleton.

The generalized definition of efficiency does incorporate any domain (including capital formation) that is relevant to maximizing global entropy.

I was working on trying to solve the problem of not having to commit so tightly coupled to a platform, because I know how important this could be for scaling in the Knowledge Age. In that linked thread, I was getting deeper into the concept of the Theory of the Firm, why corporations exist and why the Knowledge Age eliminates them. Unfortunately I've had to put that on the back burner and it is very ambitious.

Ah I just bumped into my 2011 prediction on Google, which seems to be coming true. Yet another in my long list of correct conceptualizations that come to fruition.

Capital and knowledge age
If we think capital as the means of production, then in the knowledge age, knowledge and knowledge workers is the capital, essentialy threatening "capitalism", because the means of production are now free to walk off the factory! So capitalism will be reinvented in less centralized and more distributed fashion.

Bravo! You got that aspect of the concept.  

[CoinCube]

High IQ men that mate with average IQ women, often produce high IQ offspring so it doesn't really matter if the high IQ women select themselves out of the gene pool.

The men drive evolution. That is why we feel the urge to impregnate many women.

I read that most men in certain parts of Asia have Genghis Khan's genes.

If the State wasn't dictating to men that they have to give up an arm and a leg for each child they produce, men would be much more reproductive.

Men used to be the primary drivers of evolution via sexual selection but this is simply no longer the case. Most men in certain parts of Asia do have Genghis Khan's genes. Genghis Khan lived in a time when your statements above were true.

Today it is women who drive evolution and unless there is a dark age where we return to tribalism (unlikely) this trend will continue for the foreseeable future. The state requiring significant child support and providing basic resources to single mothers certainly cements and accelerates this trend but it would exist even without state involvement.  

In the past being physically intimidating, success at combat and violence, and multiple brief "romantic" conquests were huge selective advantages that would result in offspring. Today their importance is rapidly diminishing. Female fertility and reproduction is now completely under the control of females and this represents a profound and under appreciated shift in selective pressure.

Today it matters little how many romantic conquests a man has and expending significant amounts of time and energy to secure multiple brief conquests provides little reproductive advantage and may even be detrimental.  

This article provides a snapshot of what today's dating scene is like for many young people.

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2015/08/tinder-hook-up-culture-end-of-dating

Marty, who prefers Hinge to Tinder (“Hinge is my thing”), is no slouch at “racking up girls.” He says he’s slept with 30 to 40 women in the last year: “I sort of play that I could be a boyfriend kind of guy,” in order to win them over, “but then they start wanting me to care more … and I just don’t.”

An individual able to sleep with 30-40 women a year in the ancient world would have been setting himself up genetically as the next Genghis Khan.
Today it is quite possible that Marty has no children. The selective pressures have dramatically changed.

Compare that with this blog by a women named Julie who has six kids. It is obvious from the article that she decided to do so because she loves children and likely has identified a mate that helps her support this many children.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/julie-cole/6-reasons-to-have-6-kids_b_4182276.html

When people hear that I have six kids, the reaction is usually entertaining. Sure, there are some days when I wonder what I've gotten myself into... But most of the time, I just celebrate how awesome it is to have six kids.

It is women like Julie not men like Marty who will drive human evolution over the next several generations.

[RealBitcoin]

You said you were leaving 

Earlier you said the real problem is low IQ people. Now you say it is centralization. So if only high IQ run the world, then centralization is the only possible outcome. So why are you bothering to even talk about what can't be fixed in terms of your logical basis.

That should give you a strong hint that your logical basis is flawed.

Scientific method is something you appear to not understand well. You quote a correlation between IQ and personal income. First of all, you should learn that correlation doesn't imbue causality, i.e. there can be other factors which may be at play and the correlation may not hold in every scenario past, future, and circumstantially. Secondly, if low IQ people are more numerous (hey its your assertion not mine!) then mathematically a higher number of lower income people can potentially have more economic impact thant a lower number of higher income people.

Things like that is where you diverge from reality. And there are many, many more instances where you've run aground and apparently didn't realize it.

Typical of you, just insults, and more insults.

My point was there that "power corrupts" ,yes that is the main issue.

The side issue with IQ is just natural law, you cannot do anything about that, that is irreversible natural behaviour.

But that in itself would not be an issue, if High IQ people would be moral (most of them are, yet the real powerful ones aren't), thus if they have power, atleast use that in a moral way.

Sure it can corrupt people if they have huge power, but there are the others who can stop them.


When a billionaire runs amok and starts to destroy things, it's not the little people who will stop him, but the other billionaires (preferably the ones with higher morality). Thing about that.

[TPTB_need_war]

Today it is women who drive evolution and unless there is a dark age where we return to tribalism (unlikely) this trend will continue for the foreseeable future. The state requiring significant child support and providing basic resources to single mothers certainly cements and accelerates this trend but it would exist even without state involvement.

A great culling might change your prognosis. If only the technologically adept survive the NWO eugenics. I think nature is smarter than you attribute to it

An individual able to sleep with 30-40 women a year in the ancient world would have been setting himself up genetically as the next Genghis Khan.

I could literally do this (actually I think I could impregnate 10 women per month if I made it a full-time vocation), except the economic effects could be devastating to me, because the State will force me to corrupt every single one of those offspring.

It is the State that is causing the aberration, but I doubt it will be sustained. Males will drive evolution. Feminist apologists will go down with the Titanic. (again no offense intended to females who are capable of analytical contribution and also no offense to those who excel in traditional roles)

I am still working out my evolutionary strategy. I still have time, I am only 50.

Also I think it is important to note that evolution of ideas may now be more effective evolutionary strategy than genetically. I and MA can influence millions of people much more effectively via knowledge spread.

The men are still driving evolution. Genetics are MORE influenced by the ideas, because it influences on a wider scale who prospers in natural selection.

In effect, I am driving the genetic selection of others who mimick my genes. Much more efficient than fornication.

P.S. note a certain individual has been added to my ignore list which only has two persons in it.

Europeans leading the way to humanism which we discussed upthread (the linked video is revolting if think about your male evolutionary strategy being subverted by the State):

I was going to ask you if there is any truth to this thing which covered Switzerland a little bit:

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQIBpGu5I6E

If there is, I am extra glad that my ancestors got the fuck out of there.  I mean we've got plenty of similar problems over here on this side of the pond, but it does seem like you guys are leading the pack.

Bertrand Russel says that in 'scientific societies':

"Scientific societies are as yet in their infancy. . . . It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries. Fitche laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished. . . . Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. . . .”----Bertrand Russell,1953

Looks like "the sort of character" the leaderships in all Western countries (at least) want would be a society of borederline retarded sexually confused zombie sheep.

[TPTB_need_war]

Mega threads can be banned if they subsume the forum into a groupthink. So keep that in mind when posting in this thread. Redundant arguments should be avoided.

[RealBitcoin]

Today it is women who drive evolution and unless there is a dark age where we return to tribalism (unlikely) this trend will continue for the foreseeable future. The state requiring significant child support and providing basic resources to single mothers certainly cements and accelerates this trend but it would exist even without state involvement.

Actually he is right, women drive the cultural change, but men drive the economic one.

Without getting pussy a man cannot have offspring, and if he wants to get pussy he has to subjugate his principles or ideals to the women's collective principles and ideas.

If women become feminist, then men have to follow them or else they cant reproduce. Some men will compromize, while some will not. Guess who will have more children.

TBTB is also right in the sense that the alpha-male behaviour is not so relevant anymore, in social selection (opposed to natural selection).

While alpha maledom is subsidized by all these welfares, and single moms are also incentivized to exist, there becomes a cultural war between alpha and beta personalities.

The alpha is getting pussy by themselves fairly easy, and since they are without social principles, women will dominate them eventually.

Beta personalities have to work hard to get resources, to attract women, an since their personality is weaker, they have to subjugate all their principles to women's collective principles.


Thus, both alpha and beta will become subjugated to women's collective principles, but their inability to realize that, will only push them against eachother, alpha vs beta "personality war" , and its obvious that beta will win that fight.

(Because my earlier posts, how beta personalities are more intelligent and in future the need of higher IQ will be almost a genetical invocation)


The question is what quality will the women's gene pool be after this social disaster?

[BldSwtTrs]

I am in the process of reading your writings and I would appreciate a clarification on a point.

When you say that  "knowledge production is not financed" (http://www.coolpage.com/commentary/economic/shelby/Demise%20of%20Finance,%20Rise%20of%20Knowledge.html), what exactly do you mean?

I think that to create knowledge, a lot of financing has to take place. Take yourself, you are asking for angel investors to allow you to make your ideas come into fruiton. You need to be financed in order to create some new knowledge or to convey to the world the knowledge you have already gained.

In order to survive in a free market environnement, one need to deliver something that actually works (or a useful service). And while one is creating knowledge, he is not able to deliver a working product or a useful service.

And what about R&D? Corporations are massively financing knowledge creation. Nowadays most of marketable innovations come from corporations.

Knowledge is unproductive (ie. unmarketable) until a given treshold that will be reach in the future, and to make the transition from the present to that point in the future, finance is needed. Finance allows to make the transtion from the present to the future, this has always be the very basic utility of finance since its inception.

I think your rationale suffer from a false antinomy between knowledge and finance. Both need each other.

[TPTB_need_war]

I am in the process of reading your writings and I would appreciate a clarification on a point.

When you say that  "knowledge production is not financed" (http://www.coolpage.com/commentary/economic/shelby/Demise%20of%20Finance,%20Rise%20of%20Knowledge.html), what exactly do you mean?

I think that to create knowledge, a lot of financing has to take place. Take yourself, you are asking for angel investors to allow you to make your ideas come into fruiton. You need to be financed in order to create some new knowledge or to convey to the world the knowledge you have already gained.

That essay and my recent post quoting past posts about Theory of the Firm I think already explain why, but as CoinCube wrote in the opening post of this thread, it takes about 2 weeks of deep contemplation to extract out my conceptualization because it is so foreign to the way we already conceptualize (because we did not evolve and grow up in a Knowledge Age).

If you think about the level of angel investment I really need, it is quite small and had I not so messed up my health and life over the past 2 decades, I would have more than sufficient savings to self-fund my expenses so I can code. If my gold dealer hadn't basically stolen from me, I would have enough savings to self-fund. But self-funding would be irrelevant, because I don't want to own the entire money supply of an altcoin! That would destroy it.

The more salient point is that if finance decided it wanted to build a Bitcoin killer altcoin, it could not do so. Knowledge creation can not be willed into existence by throwing a $million at it. It happens because an individual spontaneously has an epiphany. No one can predict who that individual will be. Qualifications won't determine that. Heck I don't even have a math degree nor any past experience in cryptography. By all estimates, someone like Gregory Maxwell should have created what I did. But even with Blockstream's $24 million in funding, they did not. Besides Blockstream's innovations were already conceptually invented (by Adam Back in the forum) before they got the funding. The funding was again a lagging artifact (appendage) of the reality that Westerners think they need to turn everything into a corporation (which to a large extent mucks up the process of knowledge creation). Hope you invested in Ethereum.  

Actually I think what drives knowledge creation even more than money, is in fact market demand. That is what drove me to try to solve this problem. So again network effects is the most significant factor in knowledge creation.

[BldSwtTrs]

I am in the process of reading your writings and I would appreciate a clarification on a point.

When you say that  "knowledge production is not financed" (http://www.coolpage.com/commentary/economic/shelby/Demise%20of%20Finance,%20Rise%20of%20Knowledge.html), what exactly do you mean?

I think that to create knowledge, a lot of financing has to take place. Take yourself, you are asking for angel investors to allow you to make your ideas come into fruiton. You need to be financed in order to create some new knowledge or to convey to the world the knowledge you have already gained.

That essay and my recent post quoting past posts about Theory of the Firm I think already explain why, but as CoinCube wrote in the opening post of this thread, it takes about 2 weeks of deep contemplation to extract out my conceptualization because it is so foreign to the way we already conceptualize (because we did not evolve and grow up in a Knowledge Age).

If you think about the level of angel investment I really need, it is quite small and had I not so messed up my health and life over the past 2 decades, I would have more than sufficient savings to self-fund my expenses so I can code. If my gold dealer hadn't basically stolen from me, I would have enough savings to self-fund. But self-funding would be irrelevant, because I don't want to own the entire money supply of an altcoin! That would destroy it.

The more salient point is that if finance decided it wanted to build a Bitcoin killer altcoin, it could not do so. Knowledge creation can not be willed into existence by throwing a $million at it. It happens because an individual spontaneously has an epiphany. No one can predict who that individual will be. Qualifications won't determine that. Heck I don't even have a math degree nor any past experience in cryptography. By all estimates, someone like Gregory Maxwell should have created what I did. But even with Blockstream's $24 million in funding, they did not. Besides Blockstream's innovations were already conceptually invented (by Adam Back in the forum) before they got the funding.

OK I think I see what you mean.

You are saying that the greater importance of knowledge in the production process is decreasing the importance of the control of the preexisting means of production, ie. the barriers to entry are lowered.

But I am not sure I agree with you. The barriers to entry are essentially dependent on the stage of growth of the market, and in a new market those barrier are always low.

Yes, Page and Brin didn't need a lot of capital to create Google. But Rockefeller didn't need a lot of capital to create the Standard Oil neither. This boils down to be in a young market. When the market is young the barriers are low (that's true even in the Industrial Age), when the market is mature the barriers are high (that will be true even in the Knowledge Age).

During what you call the Knowledge Age, markets will mature and barriers will become higher, and I see no reason why concentration of capital will stop being significant.

[TPTB_need_war]

Because 1 zillion immature markets will bloom due to the fact that accumulated monetary capital can no longer enslave innovation (the real capital).

[BldSwtTrs]

Because 1 zillion immature markets will bloom due to the fact that accumulated monetary capital can no longer enslave innovation (the real capital).

There will be more innovation, definitely. But that doesn't imply that the relation which exist nowadays between marketable innovation and capital will cease.

Do you deny that resources (ie money, which buy time of scientists and engineers) help to solve a problem? It does not guarantee to solve it, but it increases the probability of solving it. Because when you can buy the time of smart people you have a greater shot at solving a problem than when you cannot afford that. It's probabilistic.

If you don't deny that then you are acknowledging a causal (and probabilistic) relation between money and innovation, and that relation won't stop in the future.

[TPTB_need_war]

Who will cast their pearls at swine.

[BldSwtTrs]

Who will cast their pearls at swine.

People who cannot not survive without a salary.

And people who cannot do their research without the tools provided by corporations.

And also people who cannot do effeciciently their research without the network effect existing within a firm environment.

[BldSwtTrs]

The whole point of wage earning has always be to give up the control of the product of your work in order to:
- earn a wage which lowered the risks you are facing as an individual
- have access to the resources (hard capital and human capital) made available by the firm which allow you to gain in productivity, and without which you may even be not productive at all.

I don't understand at all why you think there will be a paradigmic shift on that matter. The arguments you are giving in your essays don't adress that question.

[TPTB_need_war]

I have already explained it. And if you still can't understand, I don't know how to help you.

Humans were trapped by the fact that factory production requires large fixed capital investment. Knowledge production can be published directly. There is no large fixed capital investment. I don't know why that is so difficult for you to grasp. Humans seem to have a giant blind spot when it comes to comprehension of relative size.

Cripes how difficult it is to understand that one laborer can't make his own factory. But one knowledge worker surely can find access to a computer connected to the internet and eat home grown vegetables and live at his parent's house for free, thus creating and publishing his work autonomously (or with a small obtainable loan not nearly comparable to the capital required to construct a factory which is out of reach of the laborer).

I guess I just assume that people are smart enough to realize something as simple as that without being spoon fed.

[BldSwtTrs]

I have already explained it. And if you still can't understand, I don't know how to help you.

Why do you think I need to be helped?

I understand pretty well the subject that we are talking about. It's me who are trying to help you.

Cripes how difficult it is to understand that one laborer can't make his own factory. But one knowledge worker surely can find access to a computer connected to the internet and eat home grown vegetables and live at his parent's house for free.

One accountant can find access to a computer connected to the internet and eat grown vegetables and lived at his parent's house for free. Sill most accountants work for a salary.  Crap, it's look like this fact doesn't fit into your theory.

There are plenty of knowledge workers nowadays, an increasing part of the labor force as you noted it. Yet, most of them work for a salary.

In other words, knowledge production have ever increased, yet salary work has not decreased since the start of the XXe century. There is no linear relationship between the two.

Too bad a guy as smart as you is not able to check empirical facts and see they don't vindicate his predictions.

I guess I just assume that people are smart enough to realize something as simple as that without being spoon fed.

Yeah you are smart and I am dumb. Sure.