Economic Devastation

[TPTB_need_war]

Realbitcoin thought that too. You can join him in your blissful Dunning-Kruger overconfident ignorance. I've already explained it. If you are rational and honest, you can admit your mistake.

[1715159908]

1715159908

[1715159908]

1715159908

[1715159908]

1715159908

[1715159908]

1715159908

[BldSwtTrs]

Realbitcoin thought that too. You can join him in your blissful Dunning-Kruger overconfident ignorance. I've already explained it. If you are rational and honest, you can admit your mistake.

Why should I admit my mistake while you have provided no compelling argument to demonstrate it?

I honestly thought that you would have a good argument to answer my interrogation. Your writings are of good quality and I iniatilly thought it was me who missed something, but in front of a lack of a solid argument to explain why finance doesn't give an edge in knowledge creation and why wage earning will stop being a thing in the future, I have no other choice than to think that you have at least one blind spot and therefore to think that the future will not look like you think it will be.

[TPTB_need_war]

Compelling argument not refuted:

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.

Fuck man, don't make post redundantly to defend against your bullshit. STFU or make a coherent refutation so I can demonstrate how stubbornly ignorant you are.

[BldSwtTrs]

Compelling argument not refuted:

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.

Fuck man, don't make post redundantly to defend against your bullshit. STFU or make a coherent refutation so I can demonstrate how stubbornly ignorant you are.

Are you aware that in developped countries the share of the industry in the GDP is only 20%?

That means 80% of the value added doesn't come from a factory. Nowadays to produce something you don't need to have factory.

Today the knowledge share of the GDP has never been higher yet we don't see the trend of the decreasing importance of finance you are prognosticating because of the rising importance of knowledge.

It seems you are living in a parallele and dichotomic world where in order to produce something one should either own a factory or be an independent knowledge worker. That's not the reality, just observe the world around you.

Since several decades  the bulk of the value added is produced by medium and small size companies, which don't need high fixed capital investment, which are hiring an increasing number of knowledge workers and which happen to have financial needs.

Now please show every body how ignorant I am, please do.

[TPTB_need_war]

Now please show every body how ignorant I am, please do.

I live in a developing country and my neighbors (husband and wife) neither of whom are college grads both work online for Odesk.com.

NICs such as the Philippines where I am, skipped the industrial revolution (for the most part) and are moving directly from agrarian to high tech Knowledge Age. Heck when I first arrived in 1990, they wouldn't even throw away a rusted nail, because of the scarcity of industrial goods. It was all coconuts 2 decades ago. You should see it now!

I am talking to a member of this forum who is in the USA and is all over the home manufacturing revolution. He created a 3D milling machine with spare parts for $600 and is making custom metal parts for a growing clientele.

Etc, etc, etc.

You are ignorant. Stop wasting my time.

[BldSwtTrs]

Now please show every body how ignorant I am, please do.

I live in a developing country and my neighbors (husband and wife) neither of whom are college grads both work online for Odesk.com.

I don't care. It doesn't adress what I am saying.  

NICs such as the Philippines where I am, skipped the industrial revolution (for the most part) and are moving directly from agrarian to high tech Knowledge Age. Heck when I first arrived in 1990, they wouldn't even throw away a rusted nail, because of the scarcity of industrial goods. It was all coconuts 2 decades ago. You should see it now!

OK so because East Asia is emerging that means finance will no longer be important. You are a formal logic genious!

I am talking to a member of this forum who is in the USA and is all over the home manufacturing revolution. He created a 3D milling machine with spare parts for $600 and is making custom metal parts for a growing clientele.

Etc, etc, etc.

So because manufacturing is disrupted by 3D that means finance will no longer be important. Because we all that the only reason finance exist is for building factory!

You are ignorant. Stop wasting my time.

You are less smart that you think you are, and I am smarter than you think. You seem pretty bad at assessing that kind of things.

[CoinCube]

...
Today the knowledge share of the GDP has never been higher yet we don't see the trend of the decreasing importance of finance you are prognosticating because of the rising importance of knowledge.
...
Since several decades  the bulk of the value added is produced by medium and small size companies, which don't need high fixed capital investment, which are hiring an increasing number of knowledge workers and which happen to have financial needs.
...

This is a fair challenge. TPTB often argues that his predicted future is happening now with the implication that we will see its fruition in our lifetimes.  
I tend to think that he is right in that he has identified a ongoing trend but that it is happening much more slowly then the time-frame implied in some of his writings.  

Finance is obviously not going to vanish going forward. Similarly the majority of knowledge workers are going to continue working for a salary for the foreseeable future. However, the pertinent question is will the relative value of financing decline as knowledge production becomes an ever larger share of the economy?

I think he makes a case why this may be so mainly:
1) The value of hard resource production declines progressively over time with technological progress.
2) Improving production requires knowledge production .
3) Knowledge production increasingly cannot be entirely financed.

So how do we square that with the fact that financing is obviously not decreasing across the larger economy at present?

This could be accounted for by three possible explanations:
A) The thesis is incorrect
B) Financing is declining in relative importance but its decline is masked via debasement of the currency unit.
C) We are in a transient period of atypical financing (a bubble) that will eventually resolve itself and results is atypically high levels of financing.

I tend to think the answer is a combination of B and C. That the value of financing is declining gradually over time, and that this decline is masked by a massive burst of financing as policy makers are forced to react to the end of our current monetary order via competitive global rounds of QE and debasement.  

[TPTB_need_war]

I gain a little bit of serious following and now the low IQ idiots come out of the woodwork to make total fools of themselves at my expense.

I don't have obligation to refute all of their idiotic myopia.

BitAssHole is now added to my ignore list. Cripes.

OK so because East Asia is emerging that means finance will no longer be important. You are a formal logic genious!

It was yet another IQ test that you failed. That Asia could leap forward so fast after being retarded by 100 years (and being nearly entirely left out of the Industrial Age) says something about the quality of the Knowledge Age that is different. This will be more apparent when China's negative profit margin financed manufacturing sector and its financed condo bubble collapse next year and 50% of what is remaining is the self-funded, non-financed Knowledge Age components of the economy.

And that quality speaks to why it grows faster than usury. Duh. But I won't explain it more than that, because I rather enjoy seeing you fumble around in the dark when the details are pretty obvious for someone with a fair amount of reading comprehension.

As Warren Buffett says, "You won't really know who isn't wearing underwear until the tide goes out".

So because manufacturing is disrupted by 3D that means finance will no longer be important. Because we all that the only reason finance exist is for building factory!

In fact idiot, you should do some research on percentage of the PROFITABLE economy being self-funded now versus a time when all means of production was significantly physical infrastructure (meaning the relative value of physical production has declined). If you want to argue, then dig up some relevant data. Else STFU.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clojure#History

Rich Hickey is the creator of the Clojure programming language.[4] Before Clojure, he developed dotLisp, a similar project based on the .NET platform.[5]

Hickey spent about 2½ years working on Clojure before publicly releasing it, much of that time working exclusively on Clojure without external funding. At the end of this period Hickey sent an email announcing the language to some friends in the Common Lisp community.

[TPTB_need_war]

I tend to think that he is right in that he has identified a ongoing trend but that it is happening much more slowly then the time-frame implied in some of his writings.

“The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function.”

Idiots don't understand that smaller things grow faster but can't be seen because their nominal size is still small.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth#Water_lily

Water lily

French children are told a story in which they imagine having a pond with water lily leaves floating on the surface. The lily population doubles in size every day and if left unchecked will smother the pond in 30 days, killing all the other living things in the water. Day after day the plant seems small and so it is decided to leave it to grow until it half-covers the pond, before cutting it back. They are then asked on what day half-coverage will occur. This is revealed to be the 29th day, and then there will be just one day to save the pond.

Finance is obviously not going to vanish going forward.

Significantly it will in a cataclysmic global economic collapse 2018 - 2020. This will retire the rest of the dying Industrial Age and that Minsky Moment, just like the 29th day of the Lily pond will usher in a new realization for humanity.

What remains will be a totalitarian eugenics NWO dying remnant of what was. It will have for some decade or so perhaps 50% economic coverage for a while and will die as Rome did perhaps requiring several decades to totally wither away.

BitAssHole (not you CC) will be hiding under a rock in despair and shame by then, just like all the other fools who have tried to argue against me.

Similarly the majority of knowledge workers are going to continue working for a salary for the foreseeable future.

Nope. There will be radical shift when the current socialism, $227 trillion global debt, $quadrillion in global derivatives collapses starting this October and reaching the climax in 2018 and then the blood letting to 2020.

The global collapse will wipe out 50% of the existing jobs. Even Oxford U. predicting in 2012 that by 2032, 47% of existing jobs would be replaced by automation. There are going to be a lot of unemployable and those that thrive will have turned to the Knowledge Age to generate work for themselves.

Cripes who can't recognize we are at a peak in finance? You'd have to be fucking deaf, dumb, and blind not to have heard the news.

C) We are in a transient period of atypical financing (a bubble) that will eventually resolve itself and results is atypically high levels of financing.

Bingo.

[BldSwtTrs]

...
Today the knowledge share of the GDP has never been higher yet we don't see the trend of the decreasing importance of finance you are prognosticating because of the rising importance of knowledge.
...
Since several decades  the bulk of the value added is produced by medium and small size companies, which don't need high fixed capital investment, which are hiring an increasing number of knowledge workers and which happen to have financial needs.
...

This is a fair challenge. TPTB often argues that his predicted future is happening now with the implication that we will see its fruition in our lifetimes.  
I tend to think that he is right in that he has identified a ongoing trend but that it is happening much more slowly then the time-frame implied in some of his writings.  

Finance is obviously not going to vanish going forward. Similarly the majority of knowledge workers are going to continue working for a salary for the foreseeable future. However, the pertinent question is will the relative value of financing decline as knowledge production becomes an ever larger share of the economy?

You sound a lot more sensible and in touch with the actual reality than him.

I think he makes a case why this may be so mainly:
1) The value of hard resource production declines progressively over time with technological progress.
2) Improving production requires knowledge production .
3) Knowledge production increasingly cannot be entirely financed.

So how do we square that with the fact that financing is obviously not decreasing across the larger economy at present?

This could be accounted for by three possible explanations:
A) The thesis is incorrect
B) Financing is declining in relative importance but its decline is masked via debasement of the currency unit.
C) We are in a transient period of atypical financing (a bubble) that will eventually resolve itself and results is atypically high levels of financing.

I tend to think the answer is a combination of B and C. That the value of financing is declining gradually over time, and that this decline is masked by a massive burst of financing as policy makers are forced to react to the end of our current monetary order via competitive global rounds of QE and debasement.

I tend to think the answer is A alone.

US Finance grow from 4.9% in 1980 to 7,9% of GDP in 2007: https://www.google.fr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCEQFjAAahUKEwj6op3G2L3HAhWG2RoKHS3gAuI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.people.hbs.edu%2Fdscharfstein%2Fgrowth_of_modern_finance.pdf&ei=WvHYVfqNL4aza63Ai5AO&usg=AFQjCNHrasrETalkvGt50OOz0bC-jXJUDQ&cad=rja share

In that period knowledge increased dramactically. It's enough to show that a negative linear relationship between knowledge and finance doesn't exist.

Now the guy is talking about exponantial function and treshold effect.
He keep talking about factories as if we were still in the Industrial Age whereas the industry account for only 20% of the GDP. So if there should have been a "singularity" point beyond which is destroyed the finance one could have hope it would already happen.
Until when should we wait for that "singularity" to happen? When industry account for 15%, 10, 5%, 1% of the GDP? It's nonsensical.

I have showed in my previous post that finance will always be needed in a foreesable future and the end of Industry Age will not change that because this end had already happened for the most part. One could argue whether the share of finance in GDP will increase or decrease, that would be an interesting debate but it's not what the guy is affirming. He is so far from reality that it's too easy to prove him wrong. Too bad his ego problem preclude him from accepting feedback.

[BldSwtTrs]

I promise it's my last post in this thread. You don't have to close it because of me and my idiocy.

I just want to add, for the sake of enlightening the readers, that the guy has clearly some really weak spot in his understanding of reality:

Nope. There will be radical shift when the current socialism, $227 trillion global debt, $quadrillion in global derivatives collapses starting this October and reaching the climax in 2018 and then the blood letting to 2020.

Here he makes the common mistake of thinking that the notional amount of the derivative market is at risk. He doesn't understand that the amount at risk in a derivative contract is far less than the notional amount. Every casual commentator of the financial markets makes this mistake.

The global collapse will wipe out 50% of the existing jobs. Even Oxford U. predicting in 2012 that by 2032, 47% of existing jobs would be replaced by automation. There are going to be a lot of unemployable and those that thrive will have turned to the Knowledge Age to generate work for themselves.

Here he thinks that because job are destroying, it somehow proves his point. He seems even compelled to prove that jobs are going to be destroyed by citing a study.

Jobs are destroyed since the dawn of humanity, it's business as usual. It's not because technology renders some jobs no longer useful that the unemployment rate goes higher. There will always be jobs creation in other part of the economy as long as it exists human needs not satisfied.

His thesis is that those jobs are going to be create solely by independent and lonely entrepreneur but there is no reason to think it will be the case. He assumes his conclusion is right without proving it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beg_a_question

That Asia could leap forward so fast after being retarded by 100 years (and being entirely left out of the Knowledge Age) says something about the quality of the Knowledge Age that is different

Here he demonstrates a very partial knowledge of economic history. Germany leapfrogged all the start of the Industrial Revoluion and Japon leapfrogged an even greater period. All that happened within the Industrial Age obviously.

I think people will understand this means that leapfrogging doesn't say anything specific about the Industrial Age or the Knowledge Age.

[TPTB_need_war]

CoinCube, I request you lock this thread. You are not obligated to of course. But I contributed more than 50% of the effort to this thread, and I have important work to do. I don't have time to waste on these idiots who are polluting the thread now, in my effort to try to retain the original high quality of the discussions that we had.

Everything comes to end. The ideal time to close this thread is now.

You are welcome to blame it on my request. I take full responsibility for any backlash.

Time will prove who was correct, and I know who that will be.


The tailcoat clingers will be coming out in exhausting waves now that I've gained some stature. They will play mindless games designed to suck the valuable production away from those who create in the Knowledge Age.

P.S. There is amble empirical evidence. I am not just not going to take the time to write it all down. Challengers can do their homework or not. It is their problem, not mine.

[CoinCube]

@BldSwtTrs my thoughts on the matter are as follows:

TBTP makes a strong argument that the physical economy will decline into relative insignificance over time. Obviously the physical economy will never disappear entirely. It is important to note that even if a full blown knowledge age occurs one would expect the increasingly insignificant physical economy to continue to grow only at a lower rate.  The physical economy is never going to disappear and there likely remain great fortunes to be won by pioneers in the physical economy. In theory, however, these fortunes will decline along with the overall importance of the physical economy leaving the greatest fortunes of the future to be won in the knowledge economy. Similarly, one would expect financing to never disappear entirely but instead to follow the trajectory of the physical economy and grow at a lower than rate than the overall economy resulting in the gradual reduction of finance into relative insignificance (over an unknown and perhaps very long period of time).

Will the physical economy collapse with a global debt bubble bursting in 2018? Let assume for the moment that such a collapse occurs. This does not indicate an immediate transition of the physical economy into insignificance. Presumably the physical economy would bottom at some (much lower) level and then gradually start to grow once more. One would expect finance and financial instruments to follow a similar trajectory.  

It may well be that only over a much longer time horizon long after our current asset bubbles and difficulty with fiat currency is ancient history that the predicted decline of the physical economy into insignificance will occur. I suspect both the physical economy and finance are both going to matter a great deal over the near term (the relevant planning horizon for those of us around today).

@TBTP as you said you have contributed the lions share to this thread. If you want it to fade away I suspect just ceasing to post in it will be sufficient to accomplish that. I am too busy at the moment to keep up in the forum so I won't be keeping it alive. I started this thread as an open forum to critique and analyze your writings and the thread appears to be serving its purpose. I think everyone understands you have limited time and resources and cannot respond to all challengers.  

[TPTB_need_war]

Will the physical economy collapse with a global debt bubble bursting in 2018? Let assume for the moment that such a collapse occurs. This does not indicate an immediate transition of the physical economy into insignificance. Presumably the physical economy would bottom at some (much lower) level and then gradually start to grow once more. One would expect finance and financial instruments to follow a similar trajectory.

Agree but words do not tell the true mathematical reality.

3325 times larger = Knowledge Age growing at 50% per annum (1/2 of doubling) for 20 years (1.5^20)
    3 times larger = old world economy growing a 5% per annum for 20 years (1.05^20)

Humans can't visualize exponential growth. They have myopia when conceiving relative size.

This argues strongly that only the very dumb people will pursue the physical economy. And this it argues it will waterfall into irrelevance rapidly.

The physical economy will become subsumed by the Knowledge Age in ways that we still get our physical production, e.g. a 3D printer will create all your products and customized just how you want them. The value added won't be in the raw materials any more (the stuff that requires big capital investment). I already explained that someone I know went from being a moderately paid car mechanic who was attacked by the USG and lost everything to a highly paid 3D printer of custom pistons with a $600 3D CNC mill he built from spare used parts. Where is JP Morgan in this   Who built a factory with their weekly income in the 20th century before the personal computer?

BitAssHole deceives himself (and went from someone who I was cordially trying to teach the concept with my limited attention span these days, to ...).

If you are going to come into a long-standing thread and attack all the work that was done, do your homework first. Don't just present myopic Dunning-Kruger crap that shows how much you haven't understood. If a challenger has hard data, then present it.

[BldSwtTrs]

@BldSwtTrs my thoughts on the matter are as follows:

TBTP makes a strong argument that the physical economy will decline into relative insignificance over time. Obviously the physical economy will never disappear entirely. It is important to note that even if a full blown knowledge age occurs one would expect the increasingly insignificant physical economy to continue to grow only at a lower rate.  The physical economy is never going to disappear and there likely remain great fortunes to be won by pioneers in the physical economy. In theory, however, these fortunes will decline along with the overall importance of the physical economy leaving the greatest fortunes of the future to be won in the knowledge economy. Similarly, one would expect financing to never disappear entirely but instead to follow the trajectory of the physical economy and grow at a lower than rate than the overall economy resulting in the gradual reduction of finance into relative insignificance (over an unknown and perhaps very long period of time).

Will the physical economy collapse with a global debt bubble bursting in 2018? Let assume for the moment that such a collapse occurs. This does not indicate an immediate transition of the physical economy into insignificance. Presumably the physical economy would bottom at some (much lower) level and then gradually start to grow once more. One would expect finance and financial instruments to follow a similar trajectory.  

It may well be that only over a much longer time horizon long after our current asset bubbles and difficulty with fiat currency is ancient history that the predicted decline of the physical economy into insignificance will occur. I suspect both the physical economy and finance are both going to matter a great deal over the near term (the relevant planning horizon for those of us around today).

Finance doesn't exist because of the physical economy. Finance exist because of the time and uncertainty exist.

"Finance is a field that deals with the allocation of assets and liabilities over time under conditions of certainty and uncertainty."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finance

To prove that finance will lost its importance you don't need to prove knowledge will be increasingly more important  and physical economy be increasingly less important, it's a trivial demonstration (and it's very embarassing to see the ego inflated guy thinking is the only one understanding the exponential function).

To prove that that finance will lost it's importance you need to prove that:
- uncertainty will disappear
- humans will escape from spacetime

Or alternatively, that humans will stop caring about the passage of time and uncertainty

Until that, you have only showed something that everybody already knows.

The ego inflated guy thinks because the barriers to entry are lowered by innovation in some markets that somehow prove his point. He doesn't understanding that his anedoctal evidence isn't symptomatic of a new broad trend in the economy: since the dawn of the markets the innovation have lowered barriers to entry and have shaken the structure of existing markets. He has just identified the byproduct of a recurring pattern and mix it up with a paradigm shift regarding the role of financial services.

To sum up, finance doesn't exist because of physical economy, it exists because of human psychology. Showing that physical economy is declining is orthogonal to the fact that finance will decline.

(Btw finance is part of the knowledge economy).

[TPTB_need_war]

1. TPTB have no conception of themselves benefiting from a Knowledge Age if they don't expand their monopolies. They are fighting over a smaller pie and have even stated that is their goal, e.g. Georgia Guidestones et al. Individual members may avail of anonymous means of hiding wealth and as anonymous competition within their ranks.

2. Boomers are philosophically against self-control and survival without a State. The State and hedonism are their glorious creation. They'll abandon it only when they're dead. The boomers drove the education and culture of the society of the generation after the X gen (my generation observed the transition and the State breaking the family unit so we rebelled, at least in the USA and I don't know about Europe). It is only the X gen (my generation) would are somewhat prepared en masse. From the latter generations in the West, there are a some exceptions on an individual basis and especially in the USA. Outside the West, the people are more prepared in the sense that many grew up surviving in difficult circumstances, even agrarian; and they have lower debt and State unfunded actuarial social welfare liabilities. But most in the developing world even though they didn't have the State take care of them, are very much socialist and want to copy the Western socialism asap.

3. So the likely outcome is very similar to Rome's fall. First the waterfall collapse, then as Constantine did, a renewed socialism religion towards global socialistic contract via a one world reserve currency with all axis powers sharing a vote in its global central bank. The youth of the world will follow starry-eyed into the NWO eugenics. The Knowledge Age will marching ahead growing much faster than that political morass. The political morass will be attempting to parasite the Knowledge Age with expropriation and taxation. I think in the end, that unproductive old world economy dies. But it will die hard because TPTB and boomers did such a glorious job of indoctrinating the world into socialism.


------------------------------------------------------
I know how fast things escalate (according to history et al) in a down-wards spiral - but spurred by your recent posts about the fall of Rome, I was contemplating that the real suffering in Europe/west likely won't come before a generational shift. Yes, we will likely see a waterfall event - and fall down very fast - however, we still have a two generations that have a lot of know-how. However, the young generation seems to largely have lost that - for several reasons. One being they never learned to take care of themselves (in many ways, physically, mentally, growing food, repairing things, hedonism, innovate etc) because the state does that for them. The older generations still have some of all that knowledge inherent in them. Secondly the thought is that the large rates of unemployment escalates this issue, where most young people in their most productive and years, where they should learn the most, are not learning anything new. They are not being handed any knowledge - in fact many places we see them being handed inferior knowledge (purposefully or not, e.g. Common Core).. And many are not seeking it themselves either.(i.e your point about Westerners being fucking lazy... most of them..)

By saying all that, I'm not disregarding things turning to shit real fast. I'm probably arguing why it will continue to keep falling down.

I am also thinking that if TPTP are smart(er) and not just self-propagandized to believe that top-down control rules everything, then they should allow for a knowledge age to flourish in which they themselves can benefit. If they tread too hard and too much they suffer themselves (in what's available etc.)

------------------------------------------------------
Aug 23

Armstrong's computer predicts that political divide in the USA but it might take longer than a few years. Looks like the USA will swing hard to the right politically this Nov 2016 election, then riding the up to the 2017.9 peak and then after fall into the economic abyss. 2018 forward is going to probably pandemic, war, chaotic shift in personal financial status every where.

So if I were you, I'd be preparing a plan B bug out for 2018ish, just in case you need it. If you don't need it, then great. But better to be prepared than not.

[CoinCube]

Finance doesn't exist because of the physical economy. Finance exist because of the time and uncertainty exist.

"Finance is a field that deals with the allocation of assets and liabilities over time under conditions of certainty and uncertainty."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finance

To prove that finance will lost its importance you don't need to prove knowledge will be increasingly more important  and physical economy be increasingly less important, it's a trivial demonstration (and it's very embarassing to see the ego inflated guy thinking is the only one understanding the exponential function).

To prove that that finance will lost it's importance you need to prove that:
- uncertainty will disappear
- humans will escape from spacetime

Or alternatively, that humans will stop caring about the passage of time and uncertainty

Until that, you have only showed something that everybody already knows.

The ego inflated guy thinks because the barriers to entry are lowered by innovation in some markets that somehow prove his point. He doesn't understanding that his anedoctal evidence isn't symptomatic of a new broad trend in the economy: since the dawn of the markets the innovation have lowered barriers to entry and have shaken the structure of existing markets. He has just identified the byproduct of a recurring pattern and mix it up with a paradigm shift regarding the role of financial services.

To sum up, finance doesn't exist because of physical economy, it exists because of human psychology. Showing that physical economy is declining is orthogonal to the fact that finance will decline.

(Btw finance is part of the knowledge economy).

When talking about finance it is important to make a distinction between two very different methods of finance.

Method #1 Traditional finance were a group of investors jointly invest in a project to pool risk.
Method #2 Modern finance where a bank is given the authority to expand the money supply via fractional lending when it identifies a profitable opportunity.

Finance via fractional reserve is a theft paradigm. It leads naturally the abandonment of sound money and later to the destruction of the currency system involved. I have documented the reasons why I believe this is the case here.

Finance Part I: Understanding the Parasite
Finance Part II: The Parasitic Cycle
Finance Part III: Divide, Conquer, Enslave

I would agree with you when you state that proving finance will vanish entirely requires you to prove that 1) uncertainty will disappear and 2) humans will stop caring about the passage of time. These conditions will never be met and thus finance will never cease to exist. However, lets exam the conditions needed to ensure not the elimination of finance but rather its gradual and relative decline.

To prove finance will decline longer term requires you to show:
- uncertainty will progressively decline
- humans will care less about the passage of time

Assuming we as a species continue to advance and progress one would expect both our knowledge to increase and our uncertainty regarding outcomes to similarly decline. I would also expect our longevity to increase. The conditions of technological progress lead naturally to the decline of finance by undermining the need for it.

[BldSwtTrs]

Finance doesn't exist because of the physical economy. Finance exist because of the time and uncertainty exist.

"Finance is a field that deals with the allocation of assets and liabilities over time under conditions of certainty and uncertainty."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finance

To prove that finance will lost its importance you don't need to prove knowledge will be increasingly more important  and physical economy be increasingly less important, it's a trivial demonstration (and it's very embarassing to see the ego inflated guy thinking is the only one understanding the exponential function).

To prove that that finance will lost it's importance you need to prove that:
- uncertainty will disappear
- humans will escape from spacetime

Or alternatively, that humans will stop caring about the passage of time and uncertainty

Until that, you have only showed something that everybody already knows.

The ego inflated guy thinks because the barriers to entry are lowered by innovation in some markets that somehow prove his point. He doesn't understanding that his anedoctal evidence isn't symptomatic of a new broad trend in the economy: since the dawn of the markets the innovation have lowered barriers to entry and have shaken the structure of existing markets. He has just identified the byproduct of a recurring pattern and mix it up with a paradigm shift regarding the role of financial services.

To sum up, finance doesn't exist because of physical economy, it exists because of human psychology. Showing that physical economy is declining is orthogonal to the fact that finance will decline.

(Btw finance is part of the knowledge economy).

When talking about finance it is important to make a distinction between two very different methods of finance.

Method #1 Traditional finance were a group of investors jointly invest in a project to pool risk.
Method #2 Modern finance where a bank is given the authority to expand the money supply via fractional lending when it identifies a profitable opportunity.

Finance via fractional reserve is a theft paradigm. It leads naturally the abandonment of sound money and later to the destruction of the currency system involved. I have documented the reasons why I believe this is the case here.

Finance Part I: Understanding the Parasite
Finance Part II: The Parasitic Cycle
Finance Part III: Divide, Conquer, Enslave

I would agree with you when you state that proving finance will vanish entirely requires you to prove that 1) uncertainty will disappear and 2) humans will stop caring about the passage of time. These conditions will never be met and thus finance will never cease to exist. However, lets exam the conditions needed to ensure not the elimination of finance but rather its gradual and relative decline.

To prove finance will decline longer term requires you to show:
- uncertainty will progressively decline
- humans will care less about the passage of time

Assuming we as a species continue to advance and progress one would expect both our knowledge to increase and our uncertainty regarding outcomes to similarly decline. I would also expect our longevity to increase. The conditions of technological progress lead naturally to the decline of finance by undermining the need for it.

We disagree regarding fractional reserve. I think fractional reserve are fine as long customers are aware of it and free banking exists (ie. theere is fractional reserve in a free market environmet). But I will take time to read the link you provide later to understand the rationale.

Regarding the declining of uncertainty, I think the exact opposite will happen. More the technology improve and more the world is complex. And more complexity leads to more uncertainty.
In the Paleolithic it was easier to forecast what would happen the 10 next years (ie. not much) than it is today (despite TPTB need war's overconfidence in his ability to do so).

Regarding the increase of the longevity, I agree that we will live longer. But that could mean that the saving rate will go up and in that case there would be more resources (relative to the production) to invest via capital markets (ie. more finance).

[TPTB_need_war]

I would agree with you when you state that proving finance will vanish entirely requires you to prove that 1) uncertainty will disappear and 2) humans will stop caring about the passage of time. These conditions will never be met and thus finance will never cease to exist. However, lets exam the conditions needed to ensure not the elimination of finance but rather its gradual and relative decline.

To prove finance will decline longer term requires you to show:
- uncertainty will progressively decline
- humans will care less about the passage of time

Sorry but this bolded assumption is myopic and exemplifies you still haven't grasped my conceptual insight entirely.

The more that final production moves closer to the individual with lower startup costs, the more uncertainty and risk decline. When a human can fully leverage his knowledge creation, he earns such an enormous ROI that several iterations of failure between each success are a non-risk and a no-brainer decision versus slaving away as an employee. Trust me, everyone who has made this leap has never gone back. I certainly never will work for financier nor employer ever again.

I mean how obtuse is it really? If you try to swat a fly 10 times before you succeed does that require finance? 

I learn key insights from software development. One of those was the amazing advantage of incremental development. In the words of the 150+ IQ genius progenitor of the term "open source" Eric S. Raymond, "release early and release often". Why? Precisely because the finer grained the iterations of failure, then the less risk.

What BitAssHole doesn't grasp is the concept of entropy. He is not sophisticated enough and I lost desire to teach him because he is not teachable. He is one of those players that argues with the coach and gets kicked off the team in spite of maybe having some talent.

What you keep forgetting CoinCube is that relative size can force an withering paradigm into waterfall collapse into extinction. Refer the math I provided in the post about relative rate of growth. My best guess is your bias is you want so much to believe that your world won't radically change. My bias is I want the world to change, and I want the areas where I am strong to be strong. But the deal is I made the choice to pursue the Knowledge Age when I was about 20 years old. By then I had figured out that a computer was cheap and powerful to work with and I only needed myself, yet if I continued my degree in Electrical Engineering I would be a slave to a corporation and large fixed capital startup costs (so I shifted degrees midstream).

P.S. you are correct to differentiate between fixed rate of return usury finance and investment with risk. I covered that in my essay which you linked from the opening post. Apparently BitAssHole didn't bother to notice.

Btw, I can only see his posts if you quote them.

[CoinCube]

We disagree regarding fractional reserve. I think fractional reserve are fine as long customers are aware of it and free banking exists (ie. theere is fractional reserve in a free market environmet). But I will take time to read the link you provide later to understand the rationale.

Regarding the declining of uncertainty, I think the exact opposite will happen. More the technology improve and more the world is complex. And more complexity leads to more uncertainty.
In the Paleolithic it was easier to forecast what would happen the 10 next years (ie. not much) than it is today (despite TPTB need war's overconfidence in his ability to do so).

Regarding the increase of the longevity, I agree that we will live longer. But that could mean that the saving rate will go up and in that case there would be more resources (relative to the production) to invest via capital markets (ie. more finance).

Take a look at the post I wrote on finance above. If we still disagree after that I am happy to discuss fractional reserve further.

In regards to the paleolithic world being less uncertain I would disagree. It was very difficult for an individual to forecast would would happen in the ancient world. You are looking at the issue globally rather than from the prospective of an individual living in those times.

Today, I am confident that barring a rare tragedy all of my young children will grow into adulthood. Furthermore I am confident that I will likewise will live to an old age. There are no guarantees but the odds are good. Society is more complex but complexity does not necessarily equal uncertainty.

Life expectancy in Rome is thought to be somewhere between ages 20–30 due to high infant mortality. If a child survived to age 10, life expectancy was an additional 37.5 years, a total of 47.5 years. Rome was advanced civilization compared to the paleolithic era. Humans, are not fundamentally biologically different than we were in Roman times indicating profound uncertainty with significant early death and demise.

Finance is primarily a tool to push forward consumption and disperse risk. As risk declines the need for finance declines. Whether an increase longevity alone will drive a decline in finance is difficult to say. Humans will always want to push forward consumption often to the point of self harm. This in many ways this has been hard wired into us as we have come to exist in an environment where the future was uncertain and life was short.      

Cokayne, Karen (2013-01-11). Experiencing Old Age in Ancient Rome. Routledge. p. 3. ISBN 9781136000065.