Economic Devastation

[CoinCube]

I am going to write some profound statements which I never before wrote in this thread or else where with such clarity of focus.

What I believe is that the level of power vacuum we get due to collectivism is driven entirely by what is most economically efficient. The level of power vacuum we've seen since the Athenian empire has been driven by two facts:

1. Agricultural Age required aggregation of capital in the form of land and the State to protect the land.

2. Industrial Age required the aggregation of capital to fund the large fixed capital investment of the factory.
...

Humans have (at least culturally and environmentally, if not also genetically but surely not homogeneous genetics) adapted to the economic reality of where the power naturally ended up in the power-law distribution of wealth and the critical importance of aggregating capital in those prior two epochs enumerated above. Both the capitalists and labor needed to serve this power vacuum of the collective in order for the economic system of redistribution (from labor to the capitalists but while buying off labor with debt and welfare) to avoid continuous war and chaos that would have been less economic.

And now we enter the Knowledge Age which will decentralize nearly everything.

What you or I believe is irrelevant. Nature will determine what is. Nature has moved to a new paradigm called the Knowledge Age. It is Just Time (for the change in epochs).
...
I believe the decentralists will reap the huge economic gains regardless where they are physically residing.
...
I wish for a world that is meritorious without power vacuums (Coasian barriers to maximum fitness). We know from our up thread discussions that nature finds a balance between completely undamped chaos and some organizational structure. I believe the Knowledge Age is a radical shift to more decentralization of power.

I agree with all of this.

A farmer in the agricultural age could achieve some protection from theft and violence by arming himself. He could protect himself against a small hostile groups by forming defensive pacts with neighboring farmers. However, defense against large scale organized violence requires an army and thus a state. In the Industrial Age the state was also required perhaps less to aggregate capital and more to protect such aggregations. Laws, judges, and property rights permit capital to be safely concentrated and deployed.

In human interactions we often face a choice between cooperation (reaching a mutually beneficial exchange) and defection (advancement of ourselves to the detriment of our fellow man).  In the Agriculture Age a cooperator might approach a farmer and ask to trade or perhaps for his daughters hand in marriage. The defector might kill the farmer and take the farm.

Collectivism exists because it limits defection especially those forms of defection linked to physical violence. Collectivism is expensive and inefficient. However, the inefficiencies associated with collectivism are less (at least historically) than the inefficiencies that come from the violence and defections that occur in an environment of unrestrained individualism.

Today we are seeing more complex forms of defection dominating the economic reality. The primary tool of today's defector is not violence but ignorance. The banks and those who own them corrupt natural market forces and profit while causing massive malinvestment via fiat currency and fractional reserve lending. At the other end of the spectrum disability and welfare scammers live off the taxpayer instead of working.

Modern collectivism certainly has serious problems the largest of which is that it is entirely unsustainable in its current form. However, in the medium term (well before any spontaneous collapse) it appears set to drive us via economic fundamentals and debt into a single world government paradigm. We may indeed be transitioning into a Knowledge Age, but a Knowledge Age alone will not immediately solve the problem of defection and thus will not eliminate the economic need for collectivism.

I share your wish for a world that is meritorious and without power vacuums. However, such a world offers little if it does not also limit coercion and defection.

[americanpegasus]

....However, such a world offers little if it does not also limit coercion and defection.

 
 
And with this, you just became my newest favorite account to read. 

[Cereberus]

Neither Japan nor China have a irreparable problem, because they can leverage the other countries in the Asian Union such as the Philippines which have excellent demographics and low debt.

OROBTC, I've been told that Japan's metallurgy has been far superior to that of Korea. I don't know if that is still the case, but I suspect so. The Japanese are like the Germans of Asia, they are perfectionists with extreme attention to details.

TPTB

That's an interesting notion that Japanese metallurgy is far superior to Korea's, I had not heard that.  It is worth me looking into.  I do not know how to (cheaply) find THAT out.  There is a service we used out of Cleveland to check bearings for noise, dimensional accuracy, etc.  Also nearby was a laboratory that did various kinds of metallurgical testing, which we only did on TWO pieces because that testing was EXPENSIVE ($1200 some 16 years ago).

Korean technology in automotive batteries (for example) is quite advanced, probably ahead of the USA, but less advanced than Japan's.

Based on very limited personal experience, I would concur that Japanese perfectionism is greater than Korean.  We NEVER get a short-count from our Japanese supplier.  The packaging is always perfect from Japan.  Korea will on occasion mess up an order (eg, bulk packing in a box or two when the pieces should have been individually boxed for retail sale).  Korean senior pilots tell the junior ones to STFU, even if the senior guy is wrong (that is changing).

This could be so.
But watching a recent episode of Click british technology show, they were seeing how Japan is doing with it's technology innovation recently. The reporter was saying that Korea has over taken Japan in technology in the past few years, they buy Korea's technology to put in their products. That is not hard to believe. I wouldn't doubt that South Korea alone is richer than Japan either.

[americanpegasus]

Leaving aside whether South Korea's current technological success is genetic, environmental, or economical, I am curious as to whether we see this extending into the realm of mathematics, computer science, and even cryptocurrency.  
  
Have we seen a recent rise of South Koreans making contributions to these fields, or has their always been a large amount of Koreans making names for themselves in these things?  
  
I only ask because I know that China is heavily involved in crypto of all forms but you don't hear much coming out of SK.  (though population # may play a factor)

[trollercoaster]

How do you like the Euro? Now imagine it on steriods, because you wish for it to have power over personal choice, answer that truthfully.

A centralized global government is such an awful idea, I would rather be dead.

Who says a global government must force European values upon the masses?

Do you really believe 1 billion muslims will comply with your false god of equality?

What is wrong with discrimination? I discriminate every day when I make choices in life, eg: I would not hire a transgendered mentally ill man to babysit my children.

You basically wish to have control over my personal choices.

Wtf dude.

[OROBTC]

...

RealBitcoin

My views would be pretty close to trollercoaster's.

Typically as governments get more power, they get more oppressive and serve their people less.  Bigger government is less efficient.  Big government is responsive.  Big government typically perpetrates more outrages (latest by the US .gov: Irwin Schiff dying alone, away from his family while CHAINED to a hospital bed...).

A globalist world government would NOT eliminate racism, etc.  In fact, they would play favorites, pick and choose beneficiaries and enemies based on THEIR criteria alone.  You would want THAT?

A Knowledge Age would presumably work better under a less-centralized government, but you would have to ask TPTB...  Such an Age might be a part of throwing off the yoke of a huge government.

Generally speaking, a small government is better than a large one.  Cheaper too (small governments cost less).


EDIT:

I just saw your new post.  WHOSE culture would draw up the rules over governing?  I would NOT want 1 billion Muslims voting away my wife's and daughter's rights! 

[macsga]

Ok I have a question, and please answer it with your best knowledge:
Is globalization necessary for this "Knowledge Age", and what is the benefit of 1 world government in terms of Freedom vs Civilization balance.
You have to admit that brutal tribalist genes work in humans, causing racism, hatred and discrimination for your fellow man. A globalised world will eliminate discrimination. However It can also be a little bit bad for personal freedom.
But do we need really absolute personal freedoms when the technology will be ultra big, and there will be plenty of resources for all?
Or do we shift toward a totalitarian system, where rationing will be the only resource distribution mechanism?
It can be a networked free market (drone mailing? drone product delivery?).
I am having a dilemma here, so please explain me the benefits and drawbacks of Globalization vs Local communities?

OK, let me try and give my best shot at what I *THINK* it would be best. Local communities are the primal cells of a healthy government. The great success with the Athenians of the gold century of Pericles was that they actually could speak and debate up close and personally with their leader. Personal contact is mandatory afaic the democratic control. This happens because the leader cannot do harm to the people that they look him in the eye (because tomorrow they will meet again!).

Globalization on the other hand, tends to leave the leaders to their absolute solitude and delivers the ability to perform whatever discrepancy they wish from what they might have suggested during their election campaigns. This way, they have nothing that keeps them from stealing for their own benefit, enforce certain politics that oppress the people, to name a few.

The best politics should have been a form of local globalization. This comes as a draft to my mind but I surely think that if we formed a global government that we could actually see and talk them (while everybody listens at the same time), will somehow prevent them from doing harm... or not. The tech is here anyway.

[RealBitcoin]

OK, let me try and give my best shot at what I *THINK* it would be best. Local communities are the primal cells of a healthy government. The great success with the Athenians of the gold century of Pericles was that they actually could speak and debate up close and personally with their leader. Personal contact is mandatory afaic the democratic control. This happens because the leader cannot do harm to the people that they look him in the eye (because tomorrow they will meet again!).

Globalization on the other hand, tends to leave the leaders to their absolute solitude and delivers the ability to perform whatever discrepancy they wish from what they might have suggested during their election campaigns. This way, they have nothing that keeps them from stealing for their own benefit, enforce certain politics that oppress the people, to name a few.

The best politics should have been a form of local globalization. This comes as a draft to my mind but I surely think that if we formed a global government that we could actually see and talk them (while everybody listens at the same time), will somehow prevent them from doing harm... or not. The tech is here anyway.

Alright then, it can be a bottom- up organization too.

However these local communities must be tied into a network. Otherwise you end up again with citi-states and wars  and bigotry between eachother.

I mean some form of ties and collaboration must always occur.


If you want a free market, prosperity and world peace, the I think you have to eliminate tribalism. Because if you think about it every single mob/gang in human history was race based: italian mob, russian mob, latino mob, irish mob ,etc...

They were all segregated and felt hostile in a different enviroment, so they organized and formed crime organizations, as a process of leveraging the society in their favor.

A  "knowedge age" free global market has no way to defend against mobs or military defense, when a hostile bigot group attacks a certain sector.


So I start to belive that for a real free market , tribalism must be gone, because then gangs will be totaly eliminated ,and it can be a  real era of peace and prosperity.

[macsga]

Alright then, it can be a bottom- up organization too.
However these local communities must be tied into a network. Otherwise you end up again with citi-states and wars  and bigotry between eachother.
I mean some form of ties and collaboration must always occur.


If you want a free market, prosperity and world peace, the I think you have to eliminate tribalism. Because if you think about it every single mob/gang in human history was race based: italian mob, russian mob, latino mob, irish mob ,etc...

They were all segregated and felt hostile in a different enviroment, so they organized and formed crime organizations, as a process of leveraging the society in their favor.
A  "knowedge age" free global market has no way to defend against mobs or military defense, when a hostile bigot group attacks a certain sector.
So I start to belive that for a real free market , tribalism must be gone, because then gangs will be totaly eliminated ,and it can be a  real era of peace and prosperity.

All points are true. A nice proposition would've been the integration of blockchain as a means for "bonding" the voters to the government prerequisites before, let's say, the government take money from the people to do something. Let me explain further. Say you voted for Obama and he promised that he will liberate the health care system. You vote for him, backing him with your vote AND your part of the deal. Each vote will count for the specific amount of money that YOU and your fellow voters will back his plans towards delivering what he promised.

All the above -of course- is something that pops out of my head while I really need some sleep (have 4hrs before I must get up again). It's a nice conversation though, and delivers something more than the usual "whining" that "everything sucks".

Goodnight from Greece.

[trollercoaster]

Mobs formed because the state created a black market for them to be profitable.

You can't eliminate nature no matter how hard you try or dislike it.

I find cultural diversity interesting, even warfare and death, and you want to pour multiculturalism on top of everything because it's "savage"

 The problem we have now is people like you create laws and attempt to control nature without thinking of the consequences.

I would also feel safer to defend myself and family from such mobs in a free market, because I would have adequate home security to do so (not relying upon a mediocre police response after the fact) which would discourage mob warfare or claiming territory.

[RealBitcoin]

Mobs formed because the state created a black market for them to be profitable.

You can't eliminate nature no matter how hard you try or dislike it.

I find cultural diversity interesting, even warfare and death, and you want to pour multiculturalism on top of everything because it's "savage"

 The problem we have now is people like you create laws and attempt to control nature without thinking of the consequences.

I would also feel safer to defend myself and family from such mobs in a free market, because I would have adequate home security to do so (not relying upon a mediocre police response after the fact) which would discourage mob warfare or claiming territory.

Hold on a second, you totally misunderstood my post. I`m also for free markets.

I just have a different theory about war/maffia/crime/genocide and other bad things. My theory is that these are created based on social segregation and isolationism.


I don't think we can achieve a free market, before we unite humanity, because there will always be an isolationist group that will either invade or get invaded either by gangs or military.

The only way to achieve peace, and you wont even need policing after, is to make humanity homogeneous, and then we will have peace and prosperity, with free markets, and no isolationist gangs to destroy it.

All gangs are race, religion, or other isolationist idea based. If you eliminate tribalism and isolationist behaviour, you wont have any gangs anymore.

[trollercoaster]

You wont unite humanity by installing a global marxist dictatorship, you're beginning to sound like Ted Turner.

Humanity might start bickering less after all attempts at controlling the free market via warfare, etc. Have proven futile due to it's decentralized nature.

People don't like eachother, you can't force that or eliminate violence.

[RealBitcoin]

You wont unite humanity by installing a global marxist dictatorship, you're beginning to sound like Ted Turner.

Humanity might start bickering less after all attempts at controlling the free market via warfare, etc. Have proven futile due to it's decentralized nature.

People don't like eachother, you can't force that or eliminate violence.

Again you are ranting here,and way out of line. I`m not a leftist, but I would like if naturally people would not differetiate eachother, like in terms of bigotry and racism.

Also it's not about individual hatred, so what if individual people dont like eachother, thats one thing.

I`m more concerned about group hatred, based on tribalist and religious division, the primive/animal part of humanity that doesn't belong in the 21 century.

____________________

The leftist-marxist equality is nonsense. I know that. But that doesn't mean that humans should not respect eachother like individuals and put aside these primitive tribalist hatred that they have, and it's based on nonsense.

____________________

Humans are already more mixed than before 1000 years, people can travel, and move to many places, and this regional tribalist mindset is just annoying and non-productive.

If you guys want a real knowledge age with prosperity and world peace, then tribalism must go.

[trollercoaster]

Who are you to decide what does and does not belong in the 21st century? Are you god?

[RealBitcoin]

Who are you to decide what does and does not belong in the 21st century? Are you god?

Well look if you want a truely productive society, and cost effective business (i presume) that costs the least amount to maintain and the most productive outcome, then this has to go.

Tribalism only gave us genocide, mass murders, hatred, concentration camps, bullying , discrimination, racism, religious wars, and unmeasurable brutality.


Now if you are a nice person, and I assume you are, then you want to end this madness, and that can only end if tribalism goes away.


Our technology and civilization is too advanced now for such primitive 100,000 year old society system, and we need a better one, that would enable everybody to reach it's true potential, individually, without any tribal supremacy crap.

[trollercoaster]

You're demonstrating that your own beliefs are morally superior to others and they must be adopted, how is this different from islam or socialism?

How can you preach individuality while you wish to impose your belief system upon the masses.

The only way a free market can survive is if it cannot be corrupted by anyone, including you.

[RealBitcoin]

You're demonstrating that your own beliefs are morally superior to others and they must be adopted, how is this different from islam or socialism?

How can you preach individuality while you wish to impose your belief system upon the masses.

The only way a free market can survive is if it cannot be corrupted by anyone, including you.

 I dont want to impose anything on anybody, you spin my words again

Please read my posts word by word to understand what I`m saying, because you just put words in my mouth.


I only said that free market is not possible until humanity is not united, because individualism is not possible until humans are not viewed as brothers.

Tribalism creates collectivism! Even Ayn Rand admits that, and she was a  real free marketer. The collective belief / group associacion is based on ancient primitive tribalist instincts.

Uniting humanity doesn't mean a marxist world domination, nor any sort of collectivist borg/zombie system. It only means that humans drop their childish tribalist mindset, and start treating people as their fellow humans, with respect and friendship.

Tribalism (which is the best name to give to all the group manifestations of the anti-conceptual mentality) is a dominant element in Europe, as a reciprocally reinforcing cause and result of Europe’s long history of caste systems, of national and local (provincial) chauvinism, of rule by brute force and endless, bloody wars.
...
Philosophically, tribalism is the product of irrationalism and collectivism. It is a logical consequence of modern philosophy. If men accept the notion that reason is not valid, what is to guide them and how are they to live?
...
If men accept the notion that the individual is helpless, intellectually and morally, that he has no mind and no rights, that he is nothing, but the group is all, and his only moral significance lies in selfless service to the group—they will be pulled obediently to join a group.
...
This, of course, is racism. But if your group is small enough, it will not be called “racism”: it will be called “ethnicity.”

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/tribalism.html

[CoinCube]

Ok I have a question, and please answer it with your best knowledge:
Is globalization necessary for this "Knowledge Age", and what is the benefit of 1 world government in terms of Freedom vs Civilization balance.
You have to admit that brutal tribalist genes work in humans, causing racism, hatred and discrimination for your fellow man. A globalised world will eliminate discrimination. However It can also be a little bit bad for personal freedom.
But do we need really absolute personal freedoms when the technology will be ultra big, and there will be plenty of resources for all?
Or do we shift toward a totalitarian system, where rationing will be the only resource distribution mechanism?
It can be a networked free market (drone mailing? drone product delivery?).
I am having a dilemma here, so please explain me the benefits and drawbacks of Globalization vs Local communities?

OK, let me try and give my best shot at what I *THINK* it would be best. Local communities are the primal cells of a healthy government. The great success with the Athenians of the gold century of Pericles was that they actually could speak and debate up close and personally with their leader. Personal contact is mandatory afaic the democratic control. This happens because the leader cannot do harm to the people that they look him in the eye (because tomorrow they will meet again!).

Globalization on the other hand, tends to leave the leaders to their absolute solitude and delivers the ability to perform whatever discrepancy they wish from what they might have suggested during their election campaigns. This way, they have nothing that keeps them from stealing for their own benefit, enforce certain politics that oppress the people, to name a few.

The best politics should have been a form of local globalization. This comes as a draft to my mind but I surely think that if we formed a global government that we could actually see and talk them (while everybody listens at the same time), will somehow prevent them from doing harm... or not. The tech is here anyway.

RealBitcoin, this is a challenging question but I will add my thoughts.

To answer your question we must first examine the role of government and it's relationship to the base state of nature. This relationship was analyzed in depth by Thomas Hobbs in his book Leviathan.

In the state of nature, each person would have a right, or license, to everything in the world. There is no centralized authority and no external recourse against violence, coercion, or defection. This, Hobbes argued, leads to a "war of all against all"

In such condition, there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving, and removing, such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

Such a primitive state cannot endure. Humans are intelligent enough to see that this "war of all against all" is horrible so we accede to a social contract and form tribes which later become cities and eventually nations. Society is a population under some sovereign authority, to whom all individuals in that society cede some rights for the sake of protection.

Back in 1651 Hobbs argued that the best type of sovereign authority available was a centralized monarch. Indeed there may well have been a time in human history when monarchy was the best available solution given our overall level of technology and education. I am hopeful, however, that we have outgrown that time. Our current social contract for all its flaws is superior to the monarchies and dictatorships it supplanted.

The role of the social contract is to maximize individual freedom to build wealth, prosperity and happiness via cooperation while minimizing individual freedom to prosper from coercion, violence and defection.

With this framework in mind will a transition to a one world government represent an improvement. I believe the answer to this question is yes. The transition from nation states to a world government contains the potential finally eliminate large scale tribe on tribe and nation on nation war and violence. The importance of such an achievement cannot be overstated.

A diffuse decentralized world government of the type described by macsga above would be of course be superior to a centralized one. However, I doubt we can smoothly transition to such a decentralized system from our current state. We lack both the technology and more importantly the education to make it work. Like our primitive forefathers forced to settle for monarchy as an incremental improvement over despotism a loose centralized world government is an incremental improvement a stepping stone to something better.

[RealBitcoin]

RealBitcoin, this is a challenging question but I will add my thoughts.

To answer your question we must first examine the role of government and it's relationship to the base state of nature. This relationship was analyzed in depth by Thomas Hobbs in his book Leviathan.

In the state of nature, each person would have a right, or license, to everything in the world. There is no centralized authority and no external recourse against violence, coercion, or defection. This, Hobbes argued, leads to a "war of all against all"

Yep I analyzed the role of the state in society too. I dont really have a problem with social order that is created by the state, I have a problem wit the taxation system, the keynesian ponzi scheme financial system, and the corrupt bureocracy.

I think the best form of governance would be a Terran Federation, that would be subdivided into the continents, and it would not be nationality/race/tribe/religion based, it would be a unified culture. Also this global government would be direct democracy based, with real  transparency, given to us by the decentralized blockhain systems.

It can be a decentralized legislature, based with the current system, or it can be a balanced one with some other clever ideas.

I also think that this global government should not interfere in the market, nor it should have a tax system. Maybe a 1-2% transaction tax, imposed on every transacton, but other than that, nothing else.

Also it should not be keynesian, it has to be austrian school based with gold or bitcoin or whatever backing, so that there would never need to be a debt system that needs to be funded by taxes.

Most taxes go anyway to fund the debt based system, and with a global government, a 1-2% transaction tax, on every transaction is more than enough to sustain every public institution, and all other taxes can go directly into the trash can.

Nonprofit organization could reclaim the taxes at the end of the year.

It would be a really nice system.

[macsga]

RealBitcoin, this is a challenging question but I will add my thoughts.

To answer your question we must first examine the role of government and it's relationship to the base state of nature. This relationship was analyzed in depth by Thomas Hobbs in his book Leviathan.

In the state of nature, each person would have a right, or license, to everything in the world. There is no centralized authority and no external recourse against violence, coercion, or defection. This, Hobbes argued, leads to a "war of all against all"

Yep I analyzed the role of the state in society too. I dont really have a problem with social order that is created by the state, I have a problem wit the taxation system, the keynesian ponzi scheme financial system, and the corrupt bureocracy.

I think the best form of governance would be a Terran Federation, that would be subdivided into the continents, and it would not be nationality/race/tribe/religion based, it would be a unified culture. Also this global government would be direct democracy based, with real  transparency, given to us by the decentralized blockhain systems.

It can be a decentralized legislature, based with the current system, or it can be a balanced one with some other clever ideas.

I also think that this global government should not interfere in the market, nor it should have a tax system. Maybe a 1-2% transaction tax, imposed on every transacton, but other than that, nothing else.

Also it should not be keynesian, it has to be austrian school based with gold or bitcoin or whatever backing, so that there would never need to be a debt system that needs to be funded by taxes.

Most taxes go anyway to fund the debt based system, and with a global government, a 1-2% transaction tax, on every transaction is more than enough to sustain every public institution, and all other taxes can go directly into the trash can.

Nonprofit organization could reclaim the taxes at the end of the year.

It would be a really nice system.

These are some very good thoughts; but let me add a bit to them. How about a "dynamic democracy scheme"? One that each tax payer should (pledge to) pay for the laws to be voted or the changes he/she wants. This way no government should have the funds to ie: start a war, without the people's consent. Totalitarianism is based on the fact that a certain group of individuals have unlimited power to implement whatever they see fit (without anyone question them).

Introducing this ledger-based "taxing" system we may (as community) decide ie: if we want more police protection or not; more schools or not, etc. If the government doesn't get the funds, then another party should take the lead in order to implement what the people paid for. In this way we will be in a constant election system that delivers at any single time what the people's will is.

Maybe supervising is a prerequisite by a certain type of "authority" but they won't have to do anything concerning people's choice - just make sure that they're implemented since the people paid/decided for them.