Economic Devastation

[iamnotback]

I have often written a concept analogous to, “if the speed-of-light were not finite, the past would be undifferentiated from the future, space-time would collapse into an infinitesimal point, and we could not exist”.

Today I realized that statement is incorrect.

A differentiated past and future only mathematically requires that the maximum velocity of any observer can't exceed the speed-of-light, but it doesn't require that the speed-of-light be any particular value. Rather it only requires that the speed-of-light be numerable, so that we can write it into the fundamental Physics equations as some quantity other than infinity.

Mathematically any numerable value selected doesn't place a bound on the speed-of-light that could be selected by some other form of existence in the universe of unbounded possibilities.

In fact, we can pick the speed-of-light to be any value we want it to be, as it only depends on the units of measure we choose:

https://www.quora.com/If-the-Planck-constant-was-different-would-the-speed-of-light-change/answer/Barak-Shoshany
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/116439/is-there-any-relation-between-planck-constant-and-gravitational-constant#answer-116441

Studying more about how the speed-of-light is measured and confirmed and our concept of what a vacuum actually is (not totally empty space), the thought occurs (to me at least) that we can only measure the speed-of-light up the maximum resolution of our measuring devices. That doesn't mean that what we are measuring is the maximum speed-of-light but rather confirming that our arbitrary theories and concepts are confirmed by the restrictions they place on our understanding of how and what to measure! This ties in perfectly to the concept of aliasing error that I outlined in my prior comment in this thread today. Einstein is quoted, “Theory determines what we observe.”. He may have also once quipped, “If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.” but what he really meant is ‘data’ where he uses ‘facts’.

So our (perception of our) existence and the speed-of-light is entirely arbitrary and is derived from the collective theories we choose to adopt. Groupthink is a powerful phenomenon, because without it we would not perceive the existence of each other. We have to resonate on some shared theory of measurement and observation, else we would all have relative records of history which are entirely independent and lonely.

Past is relative to every observer thus does not absolutely exist, i.e. for everyone (e.g. your reality does not exist for a person who never has any knowledge of your reality), the present is always gone, and the future doesn't exist now and by the former logic can't absolutely exist once it arrives. Meaning existence is never absolute, ever, rather just a concept in the minds of those who choose to agree on some memory. Note congruently that the present is an infinitesimal point on the light cone diagram.

Damn it is becoming a feely goodly reunion party. I thought I was going to have this place all to my disgruntled, derangulated self.

P.S. could someone please inform Michael Jordan that the number 23 is first prime number which is the sum of three other, consecutive, prime numbers; 5, 7 and 11.

[iamnotback]

He [AnonyMint] defines knowledge here
Information is Alive!

And I am finally ready to write the sequel to the companion blog, The Universe, and more closely relate information to our tangible world described by physics.

But I don't have time to write it formally with lots of equations. So I am going to write only the rough sketch now and refer to the equations and symbols in the prior blog.

I want to focus first on Verlinde's derivation of the gravitation force from emergent principles of conservation-of-energy and Shannon entropy (upper bound of the information content) which I had explained in the prior blog.

First of all, I want to explain why the Second Law of Thermodynamics dictates that energy must always disperse from a hot to a cold body, and not the reverse of a colder body giving up energy becoming colder and making the hot body hotter. This is because the equation for entropy of any system is maximized by having as many equiprobable possible states, i.e. the probability is very high that a hot body with its very highly probable collision of moving particles due to high kinetic energy will transfer some kinetic energy to the slower moving particles in the cold body because it maximizes the entropy of the combined system of hot and cold bodies together. But that is sort of a tautology. The point is that random events are unlikely to be able to keep a system highly ordered and concentrated, just as random twists on a Rubik's cube are unlikely to solve it. Since there can't exist any top-down omniscience in the universe, the probability of maintaining ordered systems trends towards zero on a large enough scale. This is why one can keep small things in order for a while, but large endeavors unravel more quickly. For the same reason, small things grow faster, such as a saplings grow to trees, but trees don't grow to the moon.

Referring to the equations in my prior blog, Einstein related the mass of an object to the potential energy it represents at the speed-of-light squared (E=mc²). So we can substitute energy for mass, or vice versa. And the energy that a colder body absorbs is related to the number of equiprobable possible microstates N it has and the temperature T it achieves.

So the larger mass M is dispersing energy to the small mass m (via electromagnetic transfer, e.g. photons) exerting a gravitational force due to this probability to transfer energy. The number of microstates is dictated by the surface are of the imaginary sphere at the radius R which separates the two masses, because the photons only have two degrees-of-freedom, azimuth and altitude, to travel from mass M to mass m, corresponding to two orthogonal circles of radius R. Thus the surface area of the imaginary sphere (based on the square of the two degrees of freedom each with a range of R) and not the volume inside it, determines the possibilities for states that mass m could possibly be in.



When we put all those equations together, magically the correct equation for the gravitational force is achieved, although that equation was originally derived from Newton's laws which have no concept of entropy or microstates of the bodies in consideration. Verlinde's discovery was a major revelation for Physics.

What I want to add is the insight that gravity emerges from the probability that the microstates of relative bodies of mass can't avoid dispersing some energy from the one with the higher energy (mass) to the one with less. As the bodies move closer to each other, the equations dictate the force increases, and this is because the number of equiprobably microstates is decreasing as the surface area of the imaginary sphere decreases, so relative acceleration between the two bodies must increase so as to maintain the rate of energy dispersion. Or in other words, as the bodies move closer to each other, the change in the relative entropies decreases, so the acceleration (and force) increase to compensate since the relative energy (mass) has not changed.

So the upper bound for information content (Shannon entropy) of that system of two relative bodies is directly involved in physics of the acceleration of relative bodies due to the gravitational force. So intangible information content which is a dimensionless quantity, is projected into a dimensional structure in the physical world and thus interacts with energy and forces. This is profound because it seems to hint that information content is not orthogonal to our physical world.

Although we can copy information at near zero physical cost, the mere existence of copies of information does not increase the entropy (nor information) of the system. For existing information to create new knowledge or do anything useful, it must interact with the physical world causing probabilities to disperse. Referring back to my Information is Alive! blog, the entropy of knowledge creation increases the more randomized, autonomous (because randomized requires independence) actors of knowledge creation exist.

So as our means of interacting to disperse information into more randomized, independent actors becomes more efficient requiring less energy (mass) per unit of information dispersal (synonymous with creation), our reality will more and more be dictated by cost of information transfer than effects of large mass such as moving our bodies around. Tying this back into my essay on the Rise of Knowledge and Demise of Finance, I see humanity moving away from top-down control dictated by the power-law distribution of physical resources and stored monetary capital, and towards a more dispersed spread of information experts. It appears that Agricultural and Industrial Ages were actually just temporary orders that will now succumb to the Second Law of Thermodynamics and usher in a golden Knowledge Age.


Past writings of mine which are applicable to the above:

I am quite flabbergast that Eric S. Raymond (self-professed to have 150 - 170IQ, the creator of the "open source" movement) could get the logic so wrong on the coming Knowledge Age.

In his critique of Jeremy Rifkin's book, The Zero Marginal Cost Society, he misses the key generative model of open source, which is that the source is always changing. The enslavement of knowledge by capital is due to the transactional cost of the propagation of creations. As we lower that friction, knowledge takes over.

And he apparently fails to comprehend capital can't buy knowledge because thought isn't fungible, and this becomes more evident as the diversity of innovation becomes more fine-grained.

The claim that the material input costs will be significant relative to the marginal cost of distributing more copies of intellectual property is wrong because the only costs in material production that can't be reduced asymptotically to 0 at economy-of-scale and automation are the knowledge inputs. Thus knowledge is infinitely more valuable than material production at the asymptote. The only reason that capital has been able to enslave the knowledge portion of the cost in the material cost is due to inability of fine-grain, autonomous knowledge to control the creative outputs of material production. The 3D printer changes this because the printer will be in every person's home. The commodity value relative to knowledge value of raw material inputs will fall asymptotically to 0.

What Eric misses is that many types of intellectual creations and creative processes can be incrementally fluid and shared, including music, video production, medical processes, etc.. People can take the designs of others and refine them. This is precisely open source. It is not that we won't possibly use fungible money (micro payments perhaps) to pay each other for creations, but that money won't be in control of the startup costs. Individuals will choose what they want to work spontaneously. This destroys the power of stored capital to enslave knowledge.

We will still use this money to buy those non-creative things that drop near to 0 in price, such as raw materials and food.

This is what I was trying to explain to Eric a long time ago, but it just flew right over his (and his readers') cuckoo head(s) so he banned me.

Note this doesn't mean I am agreeing with Rifkin's Marxist conclusions about the end of private property rights.

All the indicia of cod-Marxism are present. False identification of capitalism with vertical integration and industrial centralization: check.

Vertical integration enslaves knowledge and will fall away. Capital will increasingly become knowledge instead of stored fungible claims on labor.

Writing about human supercooperative behavior as though it falsifies classical and neoclassical economics

Supercooperative doesn't have to mean Communism. It can mean more finely-grained, autonomy of work. Eric is conflating here, even though Rifkin was also apparently erroneously introducing Marxism. They both got it wrong.

the concept of “the commons” is not a magic wand that banishes questions about self-determination, power relationships, and the perils of majoritarianism. Nor is it a universal solvent against actual scarcity problems

Wrong! The commons means knowledge takes control. For example, physics assures us that energy is neither created nor destroyed, so it is only the lack of knowledge production that makes energy finite or scarce. And I am not referring to perpetual motion machines, rather to more efficiency and automation of extraction of energy through greater innovation due to faster propagation of knowledge.

Nobody ever says that “the commons” requires behavior that individuals themselves would not freely choose, and if anyone ever tried to do so they would be driven out with scorn.

Correct. Rifkin doesn't understand fine-grained, autonomy is the key element of the commons.

>So @esr, how do you align the long tail of maintenance into the sunk v marginal cost framework?

Er, simply by observing that it is neither of those things and can’t be jammed into that framework.

He makes it clear that he didn't even consider that the lower transactional propagation cost of digital distribution of editable creations increases the frequency, granularity, and autonomy of those maintenance edits. He apparently doesn't remember that Metcalfe's or Reed's Law says that as the number of those editing nodes increases, then the value of the knowledge network increases squared.

When people speak of “capitalism” and “free markets” as being separable ideas, and I inquire into that, I generally find that they’re identifying capitalism with the way free-market economies behave in the presence of high communication and transaction costs – big firms with lots of vertical integration, deskilled employees treated like cogs in Taylorized processes, and elaborate hierarchical management structures designed to manage the largest possible lumps of capital to collect economies of scale.

Economies mostly stop looking like that as the costs of transaction and communication drop and technological leverage increases revenue per employee. But it’s still capitalism because specialists in capital accumulation drive most of the productive activity.

Ah he was so close to getting the point, then he screwed it up on the last sentence. Yes Eric, but what capital are they accumulating? Stored capital or knowledge capital. He just hasn't quite had the epiphany yet on how the relative value of stored capital can plummet.

Oil is food, Oil is materials, Oil is Energy, Oil is what backs USD
Oil is what you can't print. Oil is your Tax.

You can't seem to agree that knowledge will 1000X more valuable than those raw materials.

You have entirely missed the point of my post here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=495527.msg6065144#msg6065144

So I think we will stop the discussion now. I don't have more time.

Let them raise the price of oil to $1 million per liter. Our knowledge value will rise proportionally. Then I (and others) will be earning $1 trillion per day.

It is the value-added to raw inputs that is relevant. With mass production, the value-added of knowledge was amortized over the capital cost of the factory and millions of xerox copies.

Now the creations will change 1000s of variants per day or minute. The value-added is unfathomable.

It is the speed of the propagation of creation of product innovation that destroys (devalues) their control.

I am happy to inform that Eric says I am not banned as long as I can remain respectful and has allowed my input to be considered. I posted another summary of my idea.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5558&cpage=1#comment-479608

Thanks. A refutation would be more helpful.

The point is about the relative value of the autonomous knowledge (capital) economy versus the vertically integrated (monetary) capital economy. As the autonomy of creation increases in both granularity and speed-to-market (Linus principle of "publish often"), the number of nodes of sharing increases and the value of that knowledge sharing network increases by the nodes squared. We have chart confirmation of that law with the history of the Bitcoin price.

Specific example would be sharing a 3D printing design, and others autonomously iterating on that design. The design is open source. Music compositions, medical art, etc.

Thus the vertically integrated economy falls in relative value. How can you reason that we will pay the same or significantly for something produced by the economy that will be worth relatively much less than it had been?

With mass production, the value-added of the knowledge input was amortized over the capital cost of the factory and millions of produced copies. Thus the knowledge networking value was insignificant. Whereas, when knowledge can directly create with near real-time publishing, the knowledge networking value increases by the square and outstrips any startup costs. Moreover, incremental edits amortize the startup costs over many knowledge networking connections, and the value is the square of the connections.

The key is that open source knowledge is always changing and the knowledge workers benefit from autonomously iterating each other's designs, because the value of the network increases by the square of the participants who share. Metcalfe's (or Reed's) Law is at the heart of why sharing creates more value for all participants. That is not saying all nodes connect with all other nodes, rather the value scales proportional to the square.

Discussion continues over at the blog of the creator of "open source".

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5558&cpage=1#comment-479716

There is very limited ‘knowledge networking value’ for carrots. Extrapolate from there.

What does agriculture have to do with network value of knowledge creation?

Do carrots have anything to do with open source business models?

Carrots will continue their downward spiral of relative value. Iron used to be a precious metal. Commodities have trended downward in price for millennia. If knowledge can be unleashed from vertical integration gridlock, those trends should accelerate.

The refutation I expect is that there are many contributors to Linux and to aggregate value and then distribute it to the contributors requires business models such as corporate sponsorship. I agree a dearth of modularity is a barrier, but it doesn't apply to all types of creations. And I was working on higher-kinded semantics computer language to hopefully improve modularity.

Even for Linux we could ponder a pay-per-download micro payment with a new crypto-currency, then have a list of contributors ranked by LOC and distribute to them. Not sure if that works, but I am not going to try to pretend I'm as omniscient as you and know all the limitations of ingenuity of mankind.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5558&cpage=1#comment-479742

Performers and analysts are earning tips from their YouTube videos. These seed creative thought, which spawn other creations.

We will be able to produce all the food, raw materials, and energy we need with robots. There is no reason the price shouldn't trend towards zero, once the robots can build more robots.

The activity that can't be automated is creativity and knowledge creation. Thus it should rise in relative value.

Eric presented his refutation and I replied. This pretty much cements it for me.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5558&cpage=1#comment-480217

> For Rifkin’s predictions to come true it would not suffice for knowledge creation to rise in value. For his predictions to come true, material goods would have to fall to zero marginal cost. That will not happen, because atoms are heavy.

Mea culpa I haven't read the book. I indicated in my linked refutation, that I wouldn't agree with any Communist basis and agree with Eric's critique on that aspect. For the conceptual idea to scale, there must be symbiosis between individual gain and collective gain, per the Eric's Inverse Commons in the Magic Cauldron.

For example, one could argue that any initial start-up cost for a creation couldn't be offset by the knowledge network value of incremental edits because the initial creator is not directly receiving the return on investment. My counter logic is there may be business models dealing with modularity or diminishing trail of appreciation (citation) that when combined with micro payments can route remuneration backtracked to the creators. Moreover the non-monetary square law scaling of the Inverse Commons applies in that participants gain the return of the creations and incremental improvements of their brethren. It is a mesh topology N-highway of sharing. My belief is that according to gift culture Eric outlined, the community is aligned towards acknowledging sources especially when the act of doing so is only an insignificant (automated) micro payment or other remuneration models the ingenious may develop. Insignificant micro payments then aggregate to the creators at the rate of the participants squared. The squared law seems to be so powerful and at the heart of why the Inverse Commons is the "only known positive scaling law of software engineering" as so eloquently and astutely noted by Eric. That audio of Eric is permanently imprinted in my primary consciousness. I can never forget random "monkeys beating on the code" can outperform the cathedral of closed source (which I want to extend to vertical integration in general).

Also I noticed in the Bitcoin and now especially in the Dogecoin community, there is much more tipping and donations than I know about in the fiat world. The participants understand that to make their ecosystem grow, they need to reward participation. That is not Communism because it is an individual decision, no Max Weber central authority is holding a gun to each of our heads. You can see in my linked discussion thread, the participants are rallying the concepts and refining them perhaps better than I could, or at least differently and scaling requires diversity.

Atoms are heavy but that is lacking information. How heavy? Relativity is all the matters here. I never wrote zero, I wrote relative value is trending asymptotically towards zero.

> You are just as wrong as anyone who around 1900, observing the steep fall in marginal cost of manufactured goods, predicted that food would become effectively free.

In fact food declined from say a third or half of someone's income to something on the order of a tenth now in the developed world. The third world didn't industrialize so was devalued. The industrial economy was more valuable than the agricultural economy, and to survive the agricultural economy had to move to higher economies-of-scale and automation, thus significantly lowering relative prices.

And now the Knowledge Age economy is devaluing the Industrial and Agricultural age economies. Food is maybe a hundredth of my income and that is the future.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5558&cpage=1#comment-480286

> We’re still a long way from solving the shortage of skilled labor, as anyone who has ever needed a plumber can attest.

I am in the Lazarus Long camp that says there is nothing the government can't unimprove if it can touch it. Plumbing is not an extremely highly skilled activity, at least without the kafkaesque, labyrinth of building codes that must be navigated in some jurisdictions. Of course I am not arguing that building best practices aren't a good idea if done in the free market. I strongly suspect the supply of plumbers is restricted by the onerous licensing requirements which mismatch the education level of someone who wouldn't be bored out their freakin' mind to pursue that career. I was an autodidact plumber when I was 5 years old. Currently it is difficult to find a plumber in the post-BRICs NICs portion of the developing world, because the debt was driven sky-high by the Fed's ZIRP carry trade and uneconomic construction is going full tilt (to implode globally 2016 in a massive conflagrapocalypse).

I expect the discussion will likely digress to the usual pissing politics, so I won't participate further unless there is a solid refutation of my salient point about knowledge networking scaling faster than vertical integration.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5558&cpage=1#comment-481122

Decreased transactional friction leads directly to elimination of the opportunities for arbitrage. I can buy plenty of products and services directly from Shenzhen, and there’s no profit for a new middleman.

I assume your implied point is that as knowledge moves more freely then no one can build a Buffet-esque moat to defend profit. Your correct use of the term "middleman" goes to the heart of my counter-logic. Remember I wrote upthread that knowledge creation isn't fungible. So when you need something created based on an existing body of work, you need an expert. Let me distill that for you. As the transactional costs of knowledge sharing decreases, the profit moves closer to the producer of knowledge and away from the rent-seeking middlemen. Diversity of creation and the maximum division-of-labor guarantee that moat but where it is rightfully deserved personal property. People will finally own their expertise and creative energy.

Eric I continue to honor you. Peace.

Generally speaking, the point of life (at lower levels) is to make more life.  This is someways is explained well in The Selfish Gene.  It will do this by any means necessary and those means often mean creating gradients.  So life doesn't reduce gradients, it creates them.

Maximizing entropy (disorder) is the maximization of the number of equiprobable outcomes, i.e. maximizing degrees-of-freedom. Btw, degrees-of-freedom is potential energy. Creating more unique (every human is!) instances life increases diversity, granularity, and degrees-of-freedom. Procreation is breaking down the concentrated gradient (order a.k.a. kinetic energy) incoming from the Sun into maximum entropy or potential energy.

I got into this in the Information Is Alive! and The Universe essays at my blog (see my signature).

Schneider is semantically incomplete though on one point. jabo38 is correct, the goal of life is to maximize the instances life, yet life goes hand-in-hand with death because if nothing dies then procreation rate has to diminish. So in that sense Schneider is correct as quoted.

That was appreciated but let's not discuss that philosophical tangent further in this thread, so we don't bury the main point of this thread. We've already built a sufficient case for the point w.r.t. to stated goals for crypto-currency. I strongly urge to move further discussion on that to the Dark Enlightenment or Economic Devastation thread. I will copy this post there. You can click "Quote" then copy+paste into a Reply at any thread.

[iamnotback]

The prior post has been published as a blog at the blockchain blogging and crypto-currency platform Steemit:

https://steemit.com/science/@anonymint/the-golden-knowledge-age-is-rising

[CoinCube]

...
 

When we put all those equations together, magically the correct equation for the gravitational force is achieved, although that equation was originally derived from Newton's laws which have no concept of entropy or microstates of the bodies in consideration. Verlinde's discovery was a major revelation for Physics.

What I want to add is the insight that gravity emerges from the probability that the microstates of relative bodies of mass can't avoid dispersing some energy from the one with the higher energy (mass) to the one with less. As the bodies move closer to each other, the equations dictate the force increases, and this is because the number of equiprobably microstates is decreasing as the surface area of the imaginary sphere decreases, so relative acceleration between the two bodies must increase so as to maintain the rate of energy dispersion. Or in other words, as the bodies move closer to each other, the change in the relative entropies decreases, so the acceleration (and force) increase to compensate since the relative energy (mass) has not changed.

So the upper bound for information content (Shannon entropy) of that system of two relative bodies is directly involved in physics of the acceleration of relative bodies due to the gravitational force. So intangible information content which is a dimensionless quantity, is projected into a dimensional structure in the physical world and thus interacts with energy and forces. This is profound because it seems to hint that information content is not orthogonal to our physical world.

You are going to lose most readers with this because it is hard to understand without more context.
Here is the link to the original paper by Verlinde's which lays out in more detail how gravity can potentially be derived from entropy.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.0785.pdf

Gravity is explained as an entropic force caused by changes in the information associated with the positions of material bodies. A relativistic generalization of the presented arguments directly leads to the Einstein equations. When space is emergent even Newton’s law of inertia needs to be explained. The equivalence principle leads us to conclude that it is actually this law of inertia whose origin is entropic.

The possibility that information content is not orthogonal to our physical world is indeed profound. Indeed calling it simply profound is a vast understatement.

[CoinCube]

I have recently started reading a book titled the Way of God: Derech Hashem

It was originally written over two hundred and fifty years ago by Moshe Chaim Luzzatto. This book caught my attention because I heard it described by someone as the most systematic exposition of monotheism fundamentals ever written yet its author claimed he received direct instruction from an otherworldly being he identified as an angel. That was a very interesting juxtaposition so I picked up a copy. Below is a passage from the book.

We are well aware of physical things, and their natural properties and laws are well known. Spiritual concepts, on the other hand, are outside our realm of experience, and therefore cannot be adequately described...

One of these fundamentals is that everything in the physical world has a counterpart among the transcendental Forces. Every entity and process in the physical world is linked to these Forces... These Forces are therefore the roots of all physical things, and everything in the physical world is a branch and result of these Forces. The physical and the spiritual are thus bound together like links in a chain...

The existence and state of being of the physical universe thus emanate from these highest Forces and are dependent upon them. Whatever exists in the physical world is a result of something that takes place among these Forces. This is true of both what existed in the beginning and what transpires with the passage of time.

These Forces were the first things created, and they were arranged in various systems and placed in different domains. Everything that came about later was a result of this, following rules willed by God, linking these Forces to the physical world. Everything that happens in the past or present thus has its origin in processes taking place between these Forces.

The existence, state, pattern, and every other quality that exists among these Forces are a result of what is relevant to them by virtue of their essential nature. The existence, state, arrangement, and other phenomena involving physical things in turn depend on what is transmitted and reflected to them by these Forces, following the essential nature of these physical entities.

Once you acknowledge the possibility that information content is not orthogonal to our physical world you force a total reevaluation of the human condition. We must consider the possibility that rather than masters of the universe we are actually among the lowliest of the low.  

[iamnotback]

r0ach you are violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics which is explained in my blog.

You could be correct on a short-term horizon (and on human scale) but in the large scheme of things, it is impossible for you to be correct.

On the specifics, I believe there is more than abundant energy in the universe and mankind is clever enough to extract it.

And the decentralization of information and thus knowledge production is already revolutionizing our world. This will accelerate.

I am optimistic. Yeah we'll see the Western socialism collapse, which is good change. Along the way, we will see some negative things happen, such as potentially war, etc..

The Western world has had a long period of relative peace and affluence. Cycles dictate that must change. I don't view the future as continuous decline, rather as a cycle of up and down. Yet technology never stops improving our quality of life overall.

[vokain]

I have recently started reading a book titled the Way of God: Derech Hashem

It was originally written over two hundred and fifty years ago by Moshe Chaim Luzzatto. This book caught my attention because I heard it described by someone as the most systematic exposition of monotheism fundamentals ever written yet its author claimed he received direct instruction from an otherworldly being he identified as an angel. That was a very interesting juxtaposition so I picked up a copy. Below is a passage from the book.

We are well aware of physical things, and their natural properties and laws are well known. Spiritual concepts, on the other hand, are outside our realm of experience, and therefore cannot be adequately described...

One of these fundamentals is that everything in the physical world has a counterpart among the transcendental Forces. Every entity and process in the physical world is linked to these Forces... These Forces are therefore the roots of all physical things, and everything in the physical world is a branch and result of these Forces. The physical and the spiritual are thus bound together like links in a chain...

The existence and state of being of the physical universe thus emanate from these highest Forces and are dependent upon them. Whatever exists in the physical world is a result of something that takes place among these Forces. This is true of both what existed in the beginning and what transpires with the passage of time.

These Forces were the first things created, and they were arranged in various systems and placed in different domains. Everything that came about later was a result of this, following rules willed by God, linking these Forces to the physical world. Everything that happens in the past or present thus has its origin in processes taking place between these Forces.

The existence, state, pattern, and every other quality that exists among these Forces are a result of what is relevant to them by virtue of their essential nature. The existence, state, arrangement, and other phenomena involving physical things in turn depend on what is transmitted and reflected to them by these Forces, following the essential nature of these physical entities.

Once you acknowledge the possibility that information content is not orthogonal to our physical world you force a total reevaluation of the human condition. We must consider the possibility that rather than masters of the universe we are actually among the lowliest of the low.  

☝🏿️

https://youtu.be/qkQy7o-u8KI

[iamnotback]

To my BCT friends who are goldbugs, the reason I speak frankly is because I want you to look at the situation objectively. I know from my own infatuation in the past with precious metals, that the drug of fighting back against the system is very intoxicating.

But the fact is that absent our existing governance and monetary system, a power vacuum forms, which sucks in roaming armed gangs which then gives rise to warlords. The warlords are the market makers. Feudalism. Power is a fact of physics and nature.

The only way your fantasy of a silver dime monetary barter system would take form is if you have an organized community with governance, security, and enshrining silver dimes as the monetary system to give it the confidence it needs. And then some market makers to provided the liquidity between debt, silver dimes, and production. And you have to then provide for defense against more powerful invaders, so your community can't be too small.

If you don't understand how governance, market makers (i.e. power-brokers), and the economy are all dependent on each other, then you of course will make silly fantasies about people trading silver dimes as a fall back option.

Understanding power vacuums, the power-law distribution of wealth in nature, etc.. are critical to forming a rational assessment of the future.

Money has always been what people trust and have confidence in. This doesn't mean the metal itself, but as Armstrong has explained many times it was the stamp on the metal. Even when the invaders took over the Roman Empire, they used the stamps on the coins from the former Empire because it was more trusted.

Bitcoin (crypto-currency on a blockchain) enable trustless money, where we don't have to trust any authority. We trust the decentralized protocol. Now that was the ideal. Unfortunately Satoshi's proof-of-work centralizes and thus we end up trusting Gregory Maxwell and the Chinese mining cartel.

So crypto-currency is not quite ready for being independent of the powers-that-be yet.

Someone may invent a solution. I happen to know someone who claims he may have such a solution. We'll see...

Question for you.

What is the most ideal money system?

In the now Id suppose this would be the system with the most liquidity and fungibility.

However if one was to theorize what the most ideal money system was, what would it

There is no perfect static one. Nothing static will ever be perfect, because static means we can't exist. Our existence is predicated on friction and thus change via irreversibility of space-time. I wrote about this recently in several places (see Economic Devastation, see one of my blogs on Steemit, and see some recent comment posts and also wrote about this on Github, don't have time to dig this up, ... google my name and "light cones").

The ideal money system is always changing. It is the one that enables society to move forward, as the needs of society changed.

As I have explained several years ago in my seminal articles which CoinCube cited, during the Industrial Age we needed to store capital in a way that maximized the economies-of-scale of constructing factories, i.e. maximizing efficiency of labor and technical capital. Whereas, now in the Knowledge Age we need to maximize decentralization and thus diversity of maximization-of-the-division-of-labor.

This is why now physical money can't move us forward. Gold and silver could only take us back to a Dark Age. We must move forward, because the degrees-of-freedom in society had shifted due to technological advancement. I would need to write another essay to explain this in more detail and don't have the time nor cognitive energy to do it now.

As Dmitry Orlov points out, everyone's priority is on food, security, and transportation. Direct trade of these is more valued than some metal which can't be traded for these needs, because these metals are not liquid.

Thinking towards your better then steemit line of thought. The next generation social network would do well to focus on these things. Allow the economy(trade of goods and services) to flourish freely. Decentralize food preparation and distribution. (Ie: uber/air bnb like: you cook some extra food and use a local service to sell and deliver it, build a rep, etc). Decentralize security, neighborhood militia, cop liasons, neighborhood watch, etc. Decentralize transportation, uber.

(Decentralization in this case, still uses a network as the centralizer, however it allows regular people to participate. Ie: gives the purpose..a job, when no ones hiring)

Disagree. IMO, the better Steemit I am working on can't focus on physical world things, because that doesn't appear to me be the low hanging fruit. The virtual world moves at much greater degrees-of-freedom (a form of efficiency in the sense of potential energy). Once you've onboarded the virtual ecosystem, it can then also take over the physical realm as an after effect of already conquering the world.

[qiwoman2]

The economic systems that hold us to ransom and the corrupt governments that rule us instead of serve us, are the two melting pots of failure that have plagued us for thousands of years. We need honest governance, or no government at all, I don't mean anarchy but i WOULD PREFER smaller councils, like village councils where all people come together and debate what is needed most to improve the villages etc. That would change things for the better. Stronger micro economic systems are needed instead of us all relying on big government to help us.

[sidhujag]

The economic systems that hold us to ransom and the corrupt governments that rule us instead of serve us, are the two melting pots of failure that have plagued us for thousands of years. We need honest governance, or no government at all, I don't mean anarchy but i WOULD PREFER smaller councils, like village councils where all people come together and debate what is needed most to improve the villages etc. That would change things for the better. Stronger micro economic systems are needed instead of us all relying on big government to help us.

Micro management is prevalent in third world socieities is that what you mean? Lets go back 150 years?

Technology is needed ti revamp government.. we still need the current setup but we just need technology to manage it more efficiently

[naidray]

The economic systems that hold us to ransom and the corrupt governments that rule us instead of serve us, are the two melting pots of failure that have plagued us for thousands of years. We need honest governance, or no government at all, I don't mean anarchy but i WOULD PREFER smaller councils, like village councils where all people come together and debate what is needed most to improve the villages etc. That would change things for the better. Stronger micro economic systems are needed instead of us all relying on big government to help us.

Micro management is prevalent in third world socieities is that what you mean? Lets go back 150 years?

Technology is needed ti revamp government.. we still need the current setup but we just need technology to manage it more efficiently

That is right. We need to maintain the current one but what we need is advance in technology that will increse efficiency which will result in greater speedy economic activities that can help sustain everyone instaed of the slow phase economic activities that goes 10 years for something that were supposed to be done in few days.

[iamnotback]

This is the Bitcoin killer.

Actually maybe not true. Because my design works best for microtransactions. Bitcoin's security may still be required for value transactions where the cognitive load is high (i.e. the payer is reasoning about the cost of the transaction). However, it may be possible to make an exception for high valued transactions which make them just as viable in my design (if they don't become a high proportion of the transactions or cause a disproportionate rise of the market cap), in which the Bitcoin killer assertion might remain valid.

I do believe my design is a Bitcoin killer any way, in the sense that I think microtransactions are the big enchilada of the near future despite them being maligned up until now:

http://hackingdistributed.com/2014/12/17/changetip-must-die/

The reason is that most of what people do online is for fun. And the earnings that some companies make now online derives typically in the pennies per user. When you've only got to extract a few pennies from each user, the users don't care what it cost especially if they don't have to do a damn thing to pay. The low hanging fruit for crypto-currency is not replacing high valued transactions, since everyone already has a well entrenched option for that called fiat.

I think we are moving to a collaborative economy (e.g. open source) where we want to throw a few pennies towards each thing we use each day, then these get aggregated (funneled in) on projects and fan back out as salaries and commissions in morsels that enable people to pay rent, buy food, etc.. I don't think the majority of our Knowledge Age economy will be large ticket item sales, because most of what we will be producing will not be one-off creations with high effort for one user/customer (we may have customization per user but it will be automated). Economies-of-scale will continue to increase (as they did for factories in the Industrial Age), although customizability will also increase due to technological innovation, e.g. 3D printers and software (which was not possible in one-size-fits-all factories).

This is sort of the economy I have envisioned ever since I wrote the seminal essays that appear in the OP of the Economic Devastation thread.

[iamnotback]

Well the OP of this thread is still correctly predicting the outcome...

Fascinating blog post from Armstrong!

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/understanding-cycles/the-collapse-of-socialismmarxism/

Note that chart is the collapse of socialism, so that rise you see after 2018, is the rise of the move to private assets and out of public assets. It is not a rise in the economy of USA/Europe. Make sure you understand this, so you don't commit a category error.

That chart seems to indicate that Europe's socialism will be in full collapse mode by 2018.

Is it collapse of socialism or rising of socialist revolution from his post of 2 days ago? Can't have both.

Collapse of the socialism economy is normally congruent with the rise in popular outcry and fanatical support for socialism. An example is Germany's devolution into the Wiemar Republic followed by full scale megadeath and eugenics with the Socialist-Fascist Nazi final stage self-destruction.

From the Understand Everything Fundamentally essay of mine which CoinCube had cited in the OP of the Economic Devastation thread:

“It amazes that otherwise bright people can’t understand the simple concept that economic collapse doesn’t convert collectivists into anarchists.”

Edit: the USA appears to be unique in that the conservatives are strong enough (and have millions of guns which they won't willingly turn over to any government edict), that the socialists can't ram this devolution down the throat of the conservatives. So it appears Trump has been placed into the office so that the conservatives can be blamed for the economic collapse to further divide the liberals and conservatives. I think the plan is to bring a war of attrition against the conservatives by isolating them. Russia and China are just pretending to be the friend of the conservatives in order to weaken the USA via divide-and-conquer, but when the war comes they will be against the conservatives. It might be a psyops war, so obfuscated. I need to study and think more about this. I don't have a complete conceptualization yet. The elite know that the gun toting conservatives in the USA are a big stumbling block that must be weakened on their way to a new world order. Perhaps it is merely sufficient to create disarray and fragmentations, so that the different factions have no choice but to accept the IMF SDR system after the global monetary reset circa 2018 or so.

[OROBTC]

...

Gun toting American conservative OROBTC thinks that it may be a TOXIC BREW of Socialism and demographics that will ultimately kill American society as we have always known it.  Letting in more immigrants (particularly toxic ones) willy-nilly will only add to the Democrat Party and the Free Stuff Army.

I wonder how much howling & screaming we will hear if Trump really goes to work eradicating ObamaCare...

[STT]

This is why now physical money can't move us forward. Gold and silver could only take us back to a Dark Age. We must move forward, because the degrees-of-freedom in society had shifted due to technological advancement. I would need to write another essay to explain this in more detail and don't have the time nor cognitive energy to do it now.

Gold, silver and other assets can still be used by society and held as reserve capital.   They dont have to swapped every day as coins to be part of the overall system and I think they will continue to be useful standards of value even in a technologically successfully financed global population.
We need assets not just traded and speculated value.  Even though gold is ironic in its value I think it will be used at some price, it could be at a much lower price.  Its likely to be elevated by the unnecessary volatility of the failing dollar political system

we'll suffer from the financial crisis that will be the worst the world has seen since the Great Depression of the 1930s

The fact you reference a decade not a year is down to government and the perpetuation of a failure that if capitalist would have occurred in one year.  The failure of some being carried by the benefit of those in society now able to progress better for the clearing of the broken companies.   When everybody fails on both sides of a deal you have the idea of a depression and its usually tied to force applied by a government not capitalism itself

[iamnotback]

Gold, silver and other assets can still be used by society and held as reserve capital.

Agreed and it will be used by the very wealthy for that purpose (in a weighted basket in the SDRs), but my point is precious metals won't be liquid as a daily unit-of-exchange in a Mad Max collapse scenario.

Precious metals can help you preserve wealth over long periods of time, but it is not a liquid asset when the people around you desperately need food, water, medicine, and guns. And the gold dealers have been basically shut down by the lack of a futures market makers and banking system. You won't have enough size to call up Rothschilds or other wealthy elite and negotiate a deal with your gold. Gold at our size of holdings is really only useful when the financial economy is functioning, not in a Mad Max collapse scenario.

[iamnotback]

...

Gun toting American conservative OROBTC thinks that it may be a TOXIC BREW of Socialism and demographics that will ultimately kill American society as we have always known it.  Letting in more immigrants (particularly toxic ones) willy-nilly will only add to the Democrat Party and the Free Stuff Army.

I wonder how much howling & screaming we will hear if Trump really goes to work eradicating ObamaCare...

I am thinking about this a little bit and the big point that sticks out is that when the US dollar loses its status as the reserve currency of the world, this is going to bankrupt the Federal government.

But the States of the USA, have never been able to run perpetual budget deficits.

Trump election shows us the country is politically divided between rural and metropolitan. The "city slicker" derogatory term from the Civil War is still relevant today.

So it seems to me that Trump is going to be the President that presides over the return of the assertion States rights. He even admits that overturning Roe vs. Wade will return the question to the States. He said on 60 Minutes, "well maybe it means a woman will have to travel to another State to get an abortion".

I am very clearly now seeing Armstrong's computer's prediction for the breakup of the USA into regions.

By Trump lowering Federal taxes, he is making the USA competitive again at the State level. Effectively what this does is take resources from the Federal government and make it available at the State level. He is effectively returning us to States' rights.

And I think the globalists want to weaken the Federal government because it creates a power vacuum which opens the door to world government authority, because those States still need to interopt with the world in an international rule of law, not chaos.

Russia and China are primed to fill some of the power vacuum void vacated by the USA as an international super power on the decline. The elites are moving us towards power sharing with international monetary institutions such as the IMF and World Bank.

So the elites will subjugate the conservatives in the USA by their being outvoted in the international community. The conservative States will not have enough political power at the international level to have their policies and voices matter on any decisions or law, trade, migration, etc.. Eventually at some point, they will simply be overpowered. The elite have taken a long-term view because the conservative bastions within the USA are very difficult to defeat head-on.

[iamnotback]

The latest ordeals are, in my understanding, connected to my latest project Kansanmarkka. I am in a linchpin position to push the worldwide monetary revolution happen, because:

And as I've been trying to tell you, you are creating that problem for yourself unnecessarily. You are trying to replace TPTB with yourself. That is not the correct solution. We don't need more idols (Ten Commandments). Read below...

6) I can create money. Well anyone can, demonstrated by Bitcoin etc. The power of money creation is very potent, as it (mostly alone, with the help of inertia in the compartmentalised world system of course) holds the controllers in power, and its proliferation can dethrone and destroy them. I and some of my friends aimed to be in the position to have "unlimited money", which is the second step from having "all the money required" (see (5)).

The difference with "as much as needed" and "unlimited" is in the time preference. "As much as needed" requires the demonstration of a positive expected value to the "investor", so that you can get all the money you need. This capability I have had approx since 2008-2010, after which I have never been in the situation of "needing" money for doing anything that is worth doing.

"Unlimited" allows for giving money away in unlimited quantities without calculation if it will come back. This is what we are about to demonstrate with Kansanmarkka, hardly even allowing people to convert their existing financial resources to it. The situation now is similar to Bitcoin in 2009 - anyone who can get in, will just receive money in unfathomable quantities, no need (or possibility) to pay for it, except by the means of the effort required.

The points (5) and (6) can be expanded to form a 4-phase value creation ladder:

I - Not able to create value, destined to be a tool in the hands of people in (IV)
II - Able to create value, ability to live independently/collectivistically in a voluntaristic world
III - Able to create value to the extent that money is never the bottleneck as you can always exchange value for money as needed
IV - Able to create money
  IVA - Able to threaten, coerce and bribe, (drone-DU-bomb, etc.) all the world to submit to you
  IVB - Able to just let others follow you, and able to enable the leadership position as well for anyone who wishes to pick it up.

Few people at a time are in IVB - but now more than ever before, and we are more dangerous to the powers than ever before, due to the Internet. Something is going to happen, and is happening soon.

Dangerous (again), does not mean violent. IVA is violent, tyrannical, demonic, to its core. IVB is its diametric opposite, hardly willing to engage in self-defence even.

Creating as much money as needed is a lie to yourself. Money can't buy knowledge creation:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355212.0 <--- the OP of the Economic Devastation thread
The Rise of Knowledge
http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html

It is the knowledge creation which is needed and valuable. Money is a claim on resources, but not a claim on knowledge creation (because it can't be, read my essay linked above).

The power to create unlimited money (even by having people follow) is never a desirable power because it is a power vacuum.

It can never be a truth that money which is created by following leaders is an honest/truthful or nonviolent money system, because it will always be a power vacuum.

The foundation of your plan appears to begin with fundamental logic errors. Sorry. IQ tests lie.

Abstract: This paper posits that prior consensus ordering systems are winner-take-all power vacuums^† without a stable decentralized equilibrium. Satoshi’s proof-of-work (aka “PoW”)¹ and Bitshares’ Delegated Proof-of-Stake (aka “DPoS”)² are examined in some detail as plausible examples of this theory.

[redacted]

---

† _{Power vacuum in the context of this paper means the system has no viable mechanism to maintain an equilibrium of decentralized control and limit the snowballing effect of a vicious cycle feedback loop where influence (centralized control) in the system due to concentrated wealth and economies-of-scale, increases the concentration of the wealth and economies-of-scale in the system. The value of the resource to be captured far exceeds the unrecoverable portion of the (risk + opportunity + whatever) cost to capture it, the net value (analogous to a “selling price” minus cost) doesn't decrease with a decrease in demand from those who can compete to obtain it, and only the one with the most resources can capture it.}

[redacted]

[iamnotback]

I - Not able to create value, destined to be a tool in the hands of people in (IV)
II - Able to create value, ability to live independently/collectivistically in a voluntaristic world
III - Able to create value to the extent that money is never the bottleneck as you can always exchange value for money as needed
IV - Able to create money
  IVA - Able to threaten, coerce and bribe, (drone-DU-bomb, etc.) all the world to submit to you
  IVB - Able to just let others follow you, and able to enable the leadership position as well for anyone who wishes to pick it up.

Creating as much money as needed is a lie to yourself. Money can't buy knowledge creation:

It is the knowledge creation which is needed and valuable. Money is a claim on resources, but not a claim on knowledge creation (because it can't be, read my essay linked above).

Knowledge is not money, because money is fungible whereas knowledge is not.

Knowledge creation capability does determine where you fit in my scale above, and I have bolded it for you, AnonyMint. No matter how well off you may be with your knowledge creation skills, if you lack the prerequisites to monetize them (the skills, or the knowledge, or contacts, or any subset), you are still in the early stages of my ladder. Also the environment matters greatly.

When all the things that change the world and impact evolution have shifted to knowledge creation, which money can't buy, then influence over and actual knowledge creation are more valued than money. You can go buy all the useless castles you want, while I change the world. Then we will compare accomplishments.

Also pray tell Satoshi that I can't monetize my Bitcoin killer. He certainly did. But money isn't the goal and he presumably knew that also.

My goal is to move us to the next stage where knowledge creation is important and money (hard resources) less so. Atoms are heavy, but finitely so. Knowledge creation is unbounded. Compare.

In short, your ladder is not a metric of greatest importance. It the illusion that is going to trap the capitalists as we move towards the return of Jesus where resources don't matter any more. Jesus is coming technologically even if not literally.

That is why I suggested you should use your money for good while it still has any relevance. Yeah I am in a rough spot right now financially, but Jesus told me to walk with nothing and stay focused on what is important. (that doesn't mean I am a saint!)

The ones in IVB, have the burden on changing the environment (by replacing the existing world system with a better one) to enable us to move on to the next stage as humanity. When that happens, then your dreaming will become true, but it seems others have to make the transition as you are unwilling to raise your level (which I have done, after we did business together in 2008).

Raising your level in the wrong direction has made you much less likely to have any important impact. You are moving farther away from any sensible decentralized lurch towards the knowledge age with your socialist monetary scheme which is competing directing with the TPTB because it is a power vacuum direction.

Whereas, I am creating technological advances which decentralize and eliminate the power vacuum. And also provides a basic level income for a basic level of work. Which is the way it should be, not some socialistic scheme.

It can never be a truth that money which is created by following leaders is an honest/truthful or nonviolent money system, because it will always be a power vacuum.

Is any of the readers buying this? I think the exact opposite is true.

The only non power vacuum will come from technology that renders concentrated control over wealth impotent over anything other than resource capitalism.

Bitcoin failed because it burns a physical resource.

The positive scaling law of Linus' law is the solution. It is the only positive scaling law of software (technology) engineering. And it also applies to truth in a way that I am going to be the first to bring to a money system.

Please continue thinking of me as lower on your ladder. I am confident that is what they thought of Jesus too as he humbly hung out with the bankers and prostitutes because he said that is where the ripe fruit was for saving souls.


Edit: Adam Smith pointed out that those trying to promote the public interest often do worse than those who work for their own optimum economics, due to the invisible hand (or otherwise stated, "you can't do just one thing" ... see how conversationalists destroyed the rivers by trying to save the wildlife from predator wolves). Your goody-goody socialistic coin is in the same genre of myopia:

https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/macroeconomics/gdp-topic/econ-intro-in-macro-tutorial/v/introduction-to-economics

[Xester]

I - Not able to create value, destined to be a tool in the hands of people in (IV)
II - Able to create value, ability to live independently/collectivistically in a voluntaristic world
III - Able to create value to the extent that money is never the bottleneck as you can always exchange value for money as needed
IV - Able to create money
  IVA - Able to threaten, coerce and bribe, (drone-DU-bomb, etc.) all the world to submit to you
  IVB - Able to just let others follow you, and able to enable the leadership position as well for anyone who wishes to pick it up.

Creating as much money as needed is a lie to yourself. Money can't buy knowledge creation:

It is the knowledge creation which is needed and valuable. Money is a claim on resources, but not a claim on knowledge creation (because it can't be, read my essay linked above).

Knowledge is not money, because money is fungible whereas knowledge is not.

Knowledge creation capability does determine where you fit in my scale above, and I have bolded it for you, AnonyMint. No matter how well off you may be with your knowledge creation skills, if you lack the prerequisites to monetize them (the skills, or the knowledge, or contacts, or any subset), you are still in the early stages of my ladder. Also the environment matters greatly.

When all the things that change the world and impact evolution have shifted to knowledge creation, which money can't buy, then influence over and actual knowledge creation are more valued than money. You can go buy all the useless castles you want, while I change the world. Then we will compare accomplishments.

Also pray tell Satoshi that I can't monetize my Bitcoin killer. He certainly did. But money isn't the goal and he presumably knew that also.

My goal is to move us to the next stage where knowledge creation is important and money (hard resources) less so. Atoms are heavy, but finitely so. Knowledge creation is unbounded. Compare.

In short, your ladder is not a metric of greatest importance. It the illusion that is going to trap the capitalists as we move towards the return of Jesus where resources don't matter any more. Jesus is coming technologically even if not literally.

That is why I suggested you should use your money for good while it still has any relevance. Yeah I am in a rough spot right now financially, but Jesus told me to walk with nothing and stay focused on what is important. (that doesn't mean I am a saint!)

The ones in IVB, have the burden on changing the environment (by replacing the existing world system with a better one) to enable us to move on to the next stage as humanity. When that happens, then your dreaming will become true, but it seems others have to make the transition as you are unwilling to raise your level (which I have done, after we did business together in 2008).

Raising your level in the wrong direction has made you much less likely to have any important impact. You are moving farther away from any sensible decentralized lurch towards the knowledge age with your socialist monetary scheme which is competing directing with the TPTB because it is a power vacuum direction.

Whereas, I am creating technological advances which decentralize and eliminate the power vacuum. And also provides a basic level income for a basic level of work. Which is the way it should be, not some socialistic scheme.

It can never be a truth that money which is created by following leaders is an honest/truthful or nonviolent money system, because it will always be a power vacuum.

Is any of the readers buying this? I think the exact opposite is true.

The only non power vacuum will come from technology that renders concentrated control over wealth impotent over anything other than resource capitalism.

Bitcoin failed because it burns a physical resource.

The positive scaling law of Linus' law is the solution. It is the only positive scaling law of software (technology) engineering. And it also applies to truth in a way that I am going to be the first to bring to a money system.

Please continue thinking of me as lower on your ladder. I am confident that is what they thought of Jesus too as he humbly hung out with the bankers and prostitutes because he said that is where the ripe fruit was for saving souls.


Edit: Adam Smith pointed out that those trying to promote the public interest often do worse than those who work for their own optimum economics, due to the invisible hand (or otherwise stated, "you can't do just one thing" ... see how conversationalists destroyed the rivers by trying to save the wildlife from predator wolves). Your goody-goody socialistic coin is in the same genre of myopia:

https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/macroeconomics/gdp-topic/econ-intro-in-macro-tutorial/v/introduction-to-economics

There is no permanent thing in this world. In my opinion what is  presently happening is not a simple correction but the beginning of a massive fall of most global assets (perhaps excluding gold) of un-imaginable proportions and for a prolonged period , perhaps the rest of this decade.   With the fall in oil-prices , the oil-based Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWFs) which have been a  major source of liquidity to the global equity markets, started to cut down their equity holdings because the surpluses they were generating from oil exports were dwindling.