Economic Devastation

[STT]

Hmm!  And I have read other pieces that China was slacking off its hard-line policy of one child.  Their one child policy has led to a weird demographic problem there: estimates of 30,000,000 - 100,000,000 more males (than women) in the cohort of child-bearing years there in China.

Good find.  
 
Socialism leads to so many other distortions too, and the end point is totalitarianism.

They do have problems with this policy.   The gender imbalance but also the working population of China is falling now, in short this means they no longer have the cheapest labour force.   They got natural inflation as workers can demand more for their labour or at least choose the more favourable jobs available.    Since China is still quite backwards in some parts, this is some challenge for them to overcome.  They cant just throw massive resources at a task but must find an efficient solution like most western countries.  

Its going to alter their currency peg to dollar eventually I think, maybe even that export bias in their economy as its naturally smarter for them to import some low grade items from Vietnam perhaps or other cheaper labour countries.  China with its now declining labour force, especially those of good education (they arent really first world entirely afaik) must be directed to the best jobs and best use. I think it implies a proper economy is now needed by China, with correct trading even.  

In turn China could upset USA dollar debt being so excessively supported by outside countries.  Im already wondering what happens with Japan, similar kind of decline but obviously Japan is very much more advanced to technology and using foreign labour and foreign factories

[1715104934]

1715104934

[1715104934]

1715104934

[1715104934]

1715104934

[1715104934]

1715104934

[1715104934]

1715104934

[trollercoaster]

The kids in the west have already been groomed to accept these invasive policies by the new religion of environmentalism.

trollerc

I am afraid that you are correct.  

There is so much BS in environmentalism (and other New-Age-Lefty crap) that it is hard to even find, much less pass along, the truth.  Where I am it is normally quite hot in early May.  Not this year!  It's much cooler than normal.  Why?  After-effects of El Niño...


Has Oz gotten the Transgender Bathroom Epidemic yet?  A new low...

Yes Aussies suffer from the same mental illness that plagues the rest of the west, maybe to a lesser degree than Americans.

The bigger problem here, like the U.K is an addiction to nanny statism.

[STT]

Doesnt Australia have a problem with coral reefs turning all white due to fairly small changes in sea temperature but are a significant shift from the long term and will basically do irreversible damage
Im not sure how much of that is real, or a story to support the idea of global warming or possibly just a normal shift that occurs over centuries. 

The economic impact of that damage would be to tourism of course, possibly some fishing

[trollercoaster]

The corals typically return to normal after 6 months when they find new algae partners.

The propagandists would love to herd the population into the city & lock everyone out of the reefs and tell you they are dead, and they are slowly achieving this.

Aussies have basically been locked out of national parks, locking up the beaches as Marine parks is not far fetched nor far away from happening.

Blaming man for this seasonal phenomena is rediculous.

[sockpuppet1]

The bigger problem here, like the U.K is an addiction to nanny statism.

It is quite pervasive:

Don't worry the UK will be joining you because they adopted the disease of collectivism:

I suggest you keep your trap shut, when it involves intentions you are not capable of living up to.

You are such a tough guy hiding behind anonymity, and needing your big brother UK to protect you against your sleazy, foul mouth.

I wrote we have nothing more to discuss. Why are you persisting to harass me?

Reviewing the above quoted thread in its entirety will shed some light on the advancement of mankind under socialism.

[sockpuppet1]

The Devastation that man wrecks on himself (in short society is a power vacuum that requires a strong tyrant to beat the men into not defecting from the good of society):

Change the record you're boring

This forum has turned into a circus of lies and ponzi scams speculation:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1219023.msg14853958#msg14853958 (Vcash deleted posts)

Do not expect me to market anything which is "fair" to this audience. They don't want fair.

I am okay with that. Peace. You get yours and I'll get mine. That is the new world order you want.

Collectivism is a power vacuum and the argument is always about who gets to steal for and from whom.

Bernie: "Socialism can be repaired as long as I can be in charge of the stealing to insure it is fair".
Trump: "Stealing can be optimized if I am Dicktator-in-chief"
Clinton: "You'll tolerate my theft (for myself and my cronies) because as a Democrat I'll steal some for you too (and not remind you I funded it all by expanding an egregious future debt on your children's back)"

Stealing (scams, oligarchy, etc) is not the exception, rather it is the norm of human nature. Always will be.

The Lord warned us that this is the nature of man.

Don't forget the Iron Law of Political Economics.

[RealBitcoin]

They do have problems with this policy.   The gender imbalance but also the working population of China is falling now, in short this means they no longer have the cheapest labour force.   They got natural inflation as workers can demand more for their labour or at least choose the more favourable jobs available.    Since China is still quite backwards in some parts, this is some challenge for them to overcome.  They cant just throw massive resources at a task but must find an efficient solution like most western countries.  

Its going to alter their currency peg to dollar eventually I think, maybe even that export bias in their economy as its naturally smarter for them to import some low grade items from Vietnam perhaps or other cheaper labour countries.  China with its now declining labour force, especially those of good education (they arent really first world entirely afaik) must be directed to the best jobs and best use. I think it implies a proper economy is now needed by China, with correct trading even.  

In turn China could upset USA dollar debt being so excessively supported by outside countries.  Im already wondering what happens with Japan, similar kind of decline but obviously Japan is very much more advanced to technology and using foreign labour and foreign factories

YOu still forget the  P2P internet jobs. I belive that will be the future.

When billions of peopl will flood the internet searching for internet based jobs, then the internet economy will really kickstart.

Which may be beneficial for bitcoin too, since the bitcoin based jobs will be the most frictionless.

Go to https://www.reddit.com/r/Jobs4bitcoins and see that it's already growing

[sockpuppet1]

... the only person more wrong on BTC than Anonymint is Armstrong.

You and Armstrong are both wrong on the future of BitCON:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1465136.msg14854131#msg14854131

As for the price action I predicted, stay tuned...

I think Armstrong will end up being correct about bitcoin (not surviving the other side of 2020) let's see..  

It is not clear if it will destroyed or merely turned into a tool to confiscate wealth, and a better Paypal for the masses. My bet is the totalitarian variant of the future. Click the link above to find out why. Men need a tyrant.

[...]

I think Armstrong will end up being correct about bitcoin (not surviving the other side of 2020) let's see..  

It is not clear if it will destroyed or merely turned into a tool to confiscate wealth, and a better Paypal for the masses. My bet is the totalitarian variant of the future. Click the link above to find out why. Men need a tyrant.

I very much doubt it becomes a "better" Paypal for the masses for the simple reason that it isn't better.

I would be bet on failure over widespread usage of a coopted system. In fact I'd lay significant odds on that bet. (Though failure is somewhat difficult to define precisely -- let's say significant loss of value and usage.)

I see even an oligarchy controlled Bitcoin as better than Paypal, because:

1. Bitcoin is a global politik; and thus even the Chinese mining oligarchy (cum banksters pulling the strings behind the curtain) can't do anything which isn't politically correct globally.

2. Thus Bitcoin will retain many attributes that Paypal as a corporate offering can't provide such as inability to deny any person in any account equal opportunity to access, inability to enforce holdbacks, block certain industries, and other arbitrary shit Paypal does which make my head want to explode. Bitcoin is a trojan horse launched by the global elite to subvert any localized attempt to block/control the shift to digital currency.

3. Thus I predict enormous adoption for Bitcoin, but just remember it will be owned and controlled by the global elite (aka the banksters). And the global socialism will enforce a global confiscation/expropriation of those with wealth, in the coming years. It will be a bittersweet success.

[...]

3. Thus I predict enormous adoption for Bitcoin, but just remember it will be owned and controlled by the global elite (aka the banksters). And the global socialism will enforce a global confiscation/expropriation of those with wealth, in the coming years. It will be a bittersweet success.

Meh, hardly anybody wants Bitcoin, and the only ones who do will just flee it and use something else if it becomes government controlled. Using Bitcoin now is a pain in the ass and something a relatively small number of people do at great inconvenience and only out of necessity (generally speaking holding it for as short a time as possible). They'll have no trouble switching to Zcash or whatever else if necessary for their purposes. The rest will just stick with actual Paypal and similar products.

The only ones with any real wealth in Bitcoin are speculators who treat Bitcoin like a Wall Street product (and often store it in easily-confiscatable form on exchanges anyway). Well yeah maybe their Bitcoin will get confiscated. Not really any different from any other Wall Street product, and not at all surprising (to me). A few of the smartest ones will probably be able to escape confiscation, again not so different from traditional finance.

For the moment Bitcoin is only a gambler's paradise, but the conversion to instant microtransactions is the key to launching it into mass adoption.

That is why the block chain size debate has been so contentious, because it is a battle over who (Chinese mining cartel + Blockstream, all controlled behind the curtain by the banksters) owns Bitcoin as it is scaled out.

It's pretty evident from the establishment embracing Bitcoin and things like this CME news, that TPTB will use Bitcoin as a golden parachute to escape the death trap fiat system they created.  They know it's extremely hard to do business using gold, and you would need to implode civilization back to the dark ages to make gold work again, so Bitcoin is their go to play to keep the wheels turning at an above caveman level.

Ever since humans stopped being hunter gatherers and settled land, it created abundance.  That's when the predator class arose to skim the abundance.  It's in TPTB' best interests to keep a high level of civilization running in order to skim it instead of having civilization implode back to ancient Babylon.  That would likely just implode their own standard of living as well once the caviar supply lines run out.

Yes, they create catastrophes to benefit from them, but I don't think they want ones so big that they become completely unpredictable and threaten their own power structure.  They always have some type of golden parachutes in mind, and Bitcoin is seemingly the only viable thing around for digital transactions in the coming great reset.  The world supply lines are very intertwined, and if you cannot do digital transactions on an international level because nobody trusts any of the currencies, then you immediately go back to the 1800's.  Do TPTB want to live in the 1800's?  Probably not.  They have to devise something to keep the wheels of the world turning.

Agreed, but they didn't create Bitcoin as the primary escape hatch from fiat collapse (which will instead be the one world currency reserve unit basket), but rather because they want to subvert any one nation's control over the digitalization of currency. They don't want a bastardized fragmentation of the digitalized commerce world. That is all good. The bad part is they control the global politik, and thus they control Bitcoin. They can easily incorporate capital controls and expropriation into the politics of regulation of Bitcoin and then they can easily implement it since they are funding and arranging the Chinese mining cartel and Blockstream's $74 million funding.

Edit: my take on the opportunities ahead:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1219023.msg14855669#msg14855669

[sockpuppet1]

Re: 'Brexit' could trigger World War Three, warns David Cameron

At present, the biggest threats to Europe as a whole are socialism and bankruptcy. with the war politics that result from such.

ftfy

The U.K. will not leave the EU. All you socialist retards/chattel are going down the toilet together. Enjoy.

[STT]

Its fairly certain UK will not leave EU.   There is not enough alarm about actions and policy in EU that would have people shift to the harder position of changing the current norm.  Alot of people perceive the idea of leaving EU as excessive nationalism type far right thinking.
A recent poll showed a swing to stay in EU and sterling is said to be stronger because of this.

Maybe if anti eu votes were far more mobilised in voter participation, I guess a surprise turn is feasible but the fear is of leaving eu and little fear of staying despite Greece or other little bumps :p

[n3o111]

The exception to this rule is, if the AI can, or is allowed, to rewrite it's own error checking and debug software, this doesn't necessarily mean the original version ceases to exist.  If both versions continue to exist, you have recreated evolution (asexual reproduction), and your argument about "every human brain is unique and machines aren't" probably goes out the window.  Literally hordes of physical representations of each version would arise and probably compete with each other for resources just like real animals do.  Some versions would be completely useless and just stand there counting photons, other versions, being in a different environment with different external variables, might run into other AI and try to compete with it for resources and turn into predators developing weapons for the task.

[iamnotback]

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

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

The Rise of Knowledge
Understand Everything Fundamentally

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

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

...

Well I was fairly adamant that the BREXIT would fail (i.e. "Remain"), but it is increasingly looking like the British may vote to "Leave" which is a quick turn of unexpected events:

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/europes-current-economy/nigel-farage-on-the-future-of-immigration-post-brexit/

The majority of the money had bet on a failure of the BREXIT:

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/markets-by-sector/foreign-exchange/euro/brexit-sterling-euro/

...

P.S. The BREXIT is one of those black swans that can't be predicted with cycles. The conflagration of the contagion in Europe in general is following cycles of nation building and collapse. The UK has always maintained an exceptional position in the EU and it may pull away for one last deadcat bounce on the former British Empire. The UK would be exception to the organism in the Petri dish that can't escape from its predicament (as I had written with "Understand Everything Fundamentally" where I predicted in 2010 that EU would not tear apart), because the UK has only had one foot in the EU and the other foot outside. The other EU nations are unlikely to be able to exit. The EU Troika will become much more ruthless now, so as to make sure the UK lead does not cause others to vote to leave. I think this BREXIT will begin the hot wars in Europe. TPTB use war when necessary when there is no other option. We are entering a very dangerous phase now.

[thaaanos]

My prediction on how a Brexit can play out is the following:
1. Leave wins.
2. Politicians claim that since Leave wins we will leave the EU, just not immediately.
    First we must create a roadmap for an orderly exit, resolve the legal issues, negotiate post-BREXIT treaty with EU
3. If EU likes nothing more that protracted eurogroup meetings I don't know what that is. So UK will be caught for years in
    an "exiting" purgatory that will wreck the UK economy
4. After much pain and dead-end negotiations Brits will be pleading to forget the whole idea.


As for the Logic of voting Leave:
Most brits will never accept Euro but politics and decision making is dominated by the EZ that spills out in EU. So UK currently is stuck in an awkward half-commitment and the real crux is: In or Out of EZ not EU.

 

[minor-transgression]

Do you want a job where your first task is to write your
own job description? What would you suggest?

1. Immunity from prosecution
2. No Taxation
3. A Job for Life
4 ......

Ever thought of applying to the European Commission or
the ECB?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour of 1, 2, and 3, and
I might even go for: 4. World Domination, except that I
wouldn't trust myself with that amount of power. I've
also got an inclination to take responsibilities seriously.

Which means that privilege - private laws - bothers me.
Too many good people have died defending democracy and
National Sovereignty to see those virtues lightly set
aside for the mirage of a European SuperState.

Let me make a couple of predictions here: That the UK will
vote "Leave" in a few days time. Following that, Europe
and the USA, and Mr Cameron will do their best to make
the UK's life Hell for the next two years after which
they will propose another vote.

This all supposes that Europe will still be there in two
years time, something that is not a given. Hard questions
are beginning to be asked. Why people need immunity
from prosecution would be a good place to start.

I think Europe self-destructs, at least to the extent that
the UK stays out.

[iamnotback]

OROBTC and CoinCube,

Somewhere upthread I remember you two lamenting the lack of high rate of return fixed yield (fixed income) investments, but I can't find those posts. Can you quote them?

I have a suggestion for a 42% per annum fixed income investment by lending your USD at Bitfinex:

https://www.bitfinex.com/stats

That is the daily rate thus 1.000959³⁶⁵ = 1.418879202.

It is reasonably safe as long as the exchange doesn't go bankrupt (which they frequently do):

http://cryptomoms.com/forum/guides/31/lending-to-the-margin-traders-a-way-to-grow-your-bitcoin/1002/

[OROBTC]

OROBTC and CoinCube,

Somewhere upthread I remember you two lamenting the lack of high rate of return fixed yield (fixed income) investments, but I can't find those posts. Can you quote them?

I have a suggestion for a 42% per annum fixed income investment by lending your USD at Bitfinex:

https://www.bitfinex.com/stats

That is the daily rate thus 1.000959³⁶⁵ = 1.418879202.

It is reasonably safe as long as the exchange doesn't go bankrupt (which they frequently do):

http://cryptomoms.com/forum/guides/31/lending-to-the-margin-traders-a-way-to-grow-your-bitcoin/1002/

iamnotback  !!

Mate-y, I don't where those comments of mine would be, but indeed it is regrettable that there are no decent fixed income investments out there (offering a good yield at reasonably low risk).  I think the whole Financial Repression situation is caused by several things (lots of investors running scared and willing to accept low yields is probably No. 1).

A 42% annual rate looks mighty risky to me...  I'll take a look, but it's highly unlikely I'll bite...  Yes, "Exchange Bankruptcy Risk" is indeed a negative factor.

[VERUMinNUMERIS]

42% is amazing but if you're gonna take that much risk you're better off buying alts and the potential is much higher.

[iamnotback]

Interesting discussion that originated from a discussion about anonymity:

Continuing a discussion from another thread:

When you have one global corporation (a group of companies beholden to their collective oligarchy) charging fees, this is equivalent to taxation. They will charge their failures to the collective and keep the profits. It is just a world government by another name.

And I agree they will want privacy, except they will demand to have the masterkey to see everything.

I totally agree with making privacy technology for corporations. I was emphasizing that months ago in the Thoughts on Zcash thread.

Individual focused anonymity technology (i.e. resisting the "State" or collective outcome) has no market and no future (whereas privacy controlled by corporations does). I don't like this realization. I am ready to retire to some obscure place and ignore the world. (but first I'll try to make my technology contribution, health willing)

Note we are threadjacking the DAO hack theme. So if we want to discuss the tangent further, it would be best to start a new thread or move discussion to an appropriate existing thread.

Fair enough. I think the only sticking point we would have is over the new corporate system's need to see people's private information as they would get their money upfront, while traditional governments have used taxation to get their money after the fact--so if you started a new thread, my point would be that you don't need an IRS if you have a national sales tax, and if the companies are collecting the fees for themselves, you don't need much, if any, oversight at all.

Sorry, smooth, for getting this off-topic.

Politics of regressive taxation.

I don't know if it would amount to that or not, as marginal costs are trending towards zero and it's in the best interest for companies to move that way rather than glean a few extra sheckles by pissing off their user base --think of a world where you can buy a shirt (or print one) that doesn't need to be washed and changes colors and patterns on demand, a world where you don't need a car as you can make car appointments with automated uber-like systems and your job is likely in a digital capacity, so you really don't have many places to go and you can take a vr vacation without the threat of kidnappings, zika, or just a crumby locale that you got locked into--in that world the costs are so minimal that, unless your country is engaging in taxing for a living income--which will likely rise before it crumbles under the weight of its absurdity, then you can expect companies to manage by streamlining operations and lowering costs, rather than increasing pricing and remaining top-heavy. Until you imagine a world where humans can be replaced by quantum computers and traditional jobs replaced by virtual endeavors, you can't imagine a future without traditional governments and taxation schemes. The real question is what the future military looks like--will it be old style war machines that are costly and spend much of their time collecting dust, half-breed systems of corporate mercenary mechanization, OR control systems that use economic policy to set an ever widening global, and post-planetary, border system?

What do we do with all the people who don't have a job? Harvest them for body parts in an efficient corporate world?

Costs go closer to zero (at least for tangible goods), so it is nearly free to give them basic needs, but still there needs to be a transfer of wealth from the productive to the non-productive in order to pay for it, no matter how epsilon it is.

Would corporations offer a signup program for indigent to exempt them from fees and thus the productive can pay for the indigent without needing to provide their identity?

What is the economic advantage for the corporation? Hmmm.

[iamnotback]

What do we do with all the people who don't have a job? Harvest them for body parts in an efficient corporate world?

Costs go closer to zero, so it is nearly free to give them basic needs, but still there needs to be a transfer of wealth from the productive to the non-productive in order to pay for it, no matter how epsilon it is.

Would corporations offer a signup program for indigent to exempt them from fees and thus the productive can pay for the indigent without needing to provide their identity?

What is the economic advantage for the corporation? Hmmm.

We are moving towards a boon, and yes,  that boon will be built on machinic labor, rather than human labor. I doubt we will actually produce much, if anything, ourselves--as even music and art can be produced by programs--my guess is we will busy ourselves with video game-like jobs within VR culture or produce blogs about our kids and dogs, and create art and other hobby/busy work to give ourselves the satisfaction of feeling productive--my guess is a lot of people will just sit on their asses.  Corporations will likely spread further from the planet collecting resources that, when compared to our present state, will seem infinite. Though, I guess atomic printers essentially do just that without us needing to leave the planet. Think of us moving from a tribal state to a parasite state--where our existence is subsidized by machinic labor capacity. I'm sure some (maybe all that survive) will cross the bounds into cryberhumanity, but then you will a world no one 100% human can comprehend, and certainly not one living before it happens. My guess is that we will have multiple systems competing with each other until a dominate form takes shape (much as today)--But I'm betting on the corporate model pre-singularity, efficiency trumps tradition.

I don't agree with those who think A.I. will replace human creativity. I wrote a blog post on that:

http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html#Algorithm_!=_Entropy

Until a computer learns how to become one with nature (i.e. the necessity of imperfection! c.f. my explanation that timespeed-of-light must be finite...), then it can't compete on creativity. And if it becomes one with imperfection, then it has no advantage over the human genome entropy in this regard (and the computer will need to consume resources as well). Sorry Kurzweil is wrong!

The key question to answer is what is the economic motivation of the corporation.

The corporation wants to amass as much power as possible as the oligarchy is a winner-take-all power vacuum. So the corporation wants to do what will maximize its global share of the economic profits. It wants to eliminate competition to maximize profits, but it must also allow degrees-of-freedom else creativity is lost and it will crumble under its own inability to adapt/improve (as Communism does).

The larger the corporation the less adept it is. Thus the larger corporations depend on their ability to use their control over politics and large capital, to swallow all the innovation of the smaller ventures.

So I continue to foresee large corporations pandering to the unproductive majority, for the power to steal from the productive minority. This is the Iron Law of Political Economics.

Your mistake is that for corporations to view their fees as sufficient, there must be a level playing field between corporations (i.e. their fees not raided). But there is not. Thus a collective will be required to decide what is fair, and of course the large corporations will game that politik. So the large corporations (i.e. the government by any other name) will not allow the smaller corporations to collect fees anonymously. Realize the individual will become a company. Companies will become much smaller and more adept. We are  moving to a do-it-yourself open source world, e.g. 3D printing.

If we solve the political problem, then we don't need anonymity any way. In an open source world, who cares who knows who my customers are. And the world is moving away from being ashamed when your grandmother knows one has some bizarre fetish. Your grandmother probably will have one too.

I think the world will view privacy as a pita. And focus more on creativity and maximizing production. Basic level privacy yes. Anonymity from the collective, I think is a pita.

[iamnotback]

Once you say "Kurzweil is wrong," you set yourself up for failure--no one in the modern era has been more correct at predicting technology's development.

As far as creativity goes, I think your bias will be meet the same end as those who believed a computer could never beat a man in chess or at trivia or parallel parking--it's more a matter of when, than if.

Since you appealed to authority (which is an invalid form of argumentation), then I am compelled to fight his reputation. Kurzweil is a certified idiot.

A.I. mastering the known sciences, has nothing to do with my point about where future creativity is derived from serendipity of chance meeting imperfection. If computation could replace the necessary finitenessnumerability of the speed-of-light and the necessary zigzag imperfection fitness annealing of nature, then omniscience is possible, the speed-of-light is infiniteinnumerable, and the past and future (light cones of relativity) collapse into an infinitesimal point of nothingness. And nothing exists any more. Kurzweil is a certified idiot!

You are too much off on this Kurzweil fantasy that has no grounding in physics. For Kurzweil to be correct, the speed-of-light would need to infiniteinnumerable (and then nothing non-static would exist), because his theory distills down to that computation can substitute for the serendipity of unbounded entropy. That he didn't realize this, shows he is a very narrow minded thinker.

[Tangentially, the reason we can't get to the edge of the universe is because mathematically an edge requires a bounded number of dimensions otherwise an edge is only a feature in the context from another perspective. Since every quantum of matter has a perspective (i.e. another dimension of reality, because history is only relative), a universal edge would require that the quantification of matter has a lower bound. We think of the possibility of an edge because we are constrained by the Uncertainty Principle to a lower bound on the quantization of matter dictated by the quantization of the speed-of-light which we can perceive. Our model of our existence necessarily includes friction and thus oscillation because otherwise there would be no lower bound and the past and future light cones of relativity would be undifferentiated and nothing (non-static) could exist. Yet this friction means no perspective can ever be omniscient over all dimensions which is thus contextually equivalent to unbounded dimensions. So the apparency of a lower bound is counter-acted by friction, so that we can exist in an unbounded future where it is differentiated from our past. Another way of stating this is that without friction then there would be no degrees-of-freedom for anything to be independent of anything else and we would all have the same total order perspective.] <--- Added Nov. 17, 2016

Don't repeat that fucking stupid nonsense to me again (because so many people have this misconception of physics and I get tired of repeating myself over and over again...it is like a battle of attrition). It is absurd incomprehension of the basic law of the universe, which the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Even Einstein admitted it was fundamental.

I believe we will still compete for resources, but it will be machinic created resources (same as ticks or tapeworms), followed by ai compettion (remember Kurzweill predicted that we likely become the AI).

A.I. may compete but it won't replace creativity. But I don't see how that changes my points.

Anyway, you are getting the anonymity timeline wrong (also, thinking the move will be everyone all at once, the world over, look outside at the states of technology that live side-by-side from different eras), because the corporate system desires anonymity for itself to disrupt the old political system, it will push for anonymous systems, after that, who knows?

The corporate system is the old political system. The Bilderbergs are just concerned with how to maintain their hegemony and scaling their control to global economies-of-scale instead of national as it had been.

If we do manage to overcome their hegemony with for example a decentralized DAO concept, then we've solved the political problem and thus we don't need super powered anonymity. If we don't overcome their hegemony, then our anonymity can't withstand their hegemonic gaming of the politik.



Apologies for losing my couth in the prior post. I am a bit frustrated with people who follow Kurzweil. I ask them to please consider the point I have made about physics.

For A.I. to beat the unbounded creativity (i.e. entropy) of the universe, then perfection must be possible. Else A.I. has to become imperfect just like humans and nature, then it is no longer beating us every time.

It is really simple to understand that Kurzweil is dead wrong.

What else can I say?

Also, what the hell is so organic about our thought, most of our capacity is built on abstract language systems. Also, if a few human jobs remain, that doesn't undermine the net effect I'm talking about, so it's a bit of a strawman. Even if you are right about creativity (I doubt it) that doesn't change the fact that I am talking about artificial intelligence, in the sense of augmented humans too. The whole concept of the singularity is that it is a world that organic humans can't fathom (at least not its technical workings) without the aid of artificial brain augmentation (I don't think you get Kurzweil on this).

Without creativity, then there is no value. What ever can be replicated becomes nearly free. The creativity is where all the value will remain. Our existence is a game of chance. Without the chance, there isn't a game. Poof its gone.

As for privacy, let me repeat for the third time: the corporate systems will most likely embrace anonymity while they are disrupting the current system--saying it is the same system to those who run it (state controlled governments) probably won't help them get over their loss. "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme*"--but that doesn't invalidate my point of the corporate system wanting privacy to undermine the current infrastructure (let's not get into semantical nitpicking).

The destruction of the nation-state system is coming via a debt implosion. The destruction of the hierarchical structures of the industrial age, is coming due to technological disruption such as open source and a decentralized DAO concept. Anonymity seems to have nearly nothing to do with it as far as I can see.