Economic Devastation

[iamnotback]

Again for those who don't know what time it is and prefer it graphically conveyed, we are in the tail-end of the 309.6 cycle of the cyclical Fall of Society.

On the chart below, 485 AD was the fall of the Western Roman Empire (when only the Byzantine portion remained) and 1105 AD was the fall of the Eastern (Byzantine) Roman Empire:

[minor-transgression]

"the tax rate in the Roman empire before sh*t hit the fan. It was 2% "

If you believe that the tax rate of the Roman Empire was 2% for other than a brief moment
of time, I have a bridge you may want to buy for your Collection :-)

[iamnotback]

Roach read http://unenumerated.blogspot.ca/2016/02/two-malthusian-scares.html?m=1#links

We are in the offloading gold stage by elite.. oil producers are buying by converting from oil.. malthusian event is over and commodities are set to collapse lagging behind gold. Now where oh where the heck is smart money going to start putting their money over the next decade in anticipation of industrial usage actually catching up and producing the next malthusian event? Hint its sure as hell not back into gold.. as that would not.be very smart

Excellent post. Plays right into the theme of my Rise of Knowledge, Demise of Finance essay.

[sidhujag]

Roach read http://unenumerated.blogspot.ca/2016/02/two-malthusian-scares.html?m=1#links

We are in the offloading gold stage by elite.. oil producers are buying by converting from oil.. malthusian event is over and commodities are set to collapse lagging behind gold. Now where oh where the heck is smart money going to start putting their money over the next decade in anticipation of industrial usage actually catching up and producing the next malthusian event? Hint its sure as hell not back into gold.. as that would not.be very smart

Excellent post. Plays right into the theme of my Rise of Knowledge, Demise of Finance essay.

There is 50pct chance that we are in coordinated chaos and that means nothing changes and can is kicked and 50pct chance we are in uncordinated chaos in which commodity producers buy gold while other offload gold randomely as they search for more optimal stores of value as commodities fall. Im not sure which one we are in but the facts are given by szabo and we are left to decide based on subjectivity.. I believe bigger cycle events would happen if we are in an uncontrolled state

[Lancusters]

But it seems to me everything is much easier. China has provoked mass production of cheap products. The crisis provoked by the over-saturation of market with goods. Gold will also fall in price because will fall the income of producers of goods. Unfortunately, the way out of this situation only through technological progress that is problematic or through a world war, after which mass destruction will trigger the demand and revive the economy.

[picolo]

But it seems to me everything is much easier. China has provoked mass production of cheap products. The crisis provoked by the over-saturation of market with goods. Gold will also fall in price because will fall the income of producers of goods. Unfortunately, the way out of this situation only through technological progress that is problematic or through a world war, after which mass destruction will trigger the demand and revive the economy.

China has built an industrial economy and is making great products while paying its workers more and more every year, 1 billion persons went out of poverty.

The west has accumulated a lot of wealth but the government has kept growing and the rising cost of it has increased with it.
Technology, cheap goods from asia, women going back to the workforce outside of home, debt has delayed the problem that is still here : subsidizing goods and services cost a lot and has two horrible consequences : the quality goes down and the price goes up as competition goes down and overcomsumption occurs.

The solution is more competition, less taxes and no debt to be paid by the next generations to satisfy our need to think we help the poor while not wanting to have increased taxes.

If there is a huge economic devastation in the west, gold, connections, guns, bottles of alcohol to trade for food could come handy.

[iamnotback]

CoinCube do you realize how monumentally important your OP is:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1739268.msg18280586#msg18280586

[CoinCube]

And now the conservative Generation Z
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2017/02/and-now-the-conservative-generation-z/

Forget Millennials.  A new generation is coming of age:  Generation-Z. It’s being heralded as the most conservative generation since 1945.

One reason, according to Charlie Peters, a member of that generation in Great Britain, is their love of freedom.  Not long ago, that impulse led young people to embrace the causes of the Left.  But now the Left is associated with suppressing freedom.

Now that Generation-Zs are entering the university, they are chafing against the Leftist establishment’s rejection of free speech.  These young people, Peters observes, grew up on the internet and social media where people can hold any position and say whatever they want.  So when they come to the university with its speech codes and taboo ideas, they don’t like it.  So they are becoming conservatives.

From Charlie Peters, The student Left’s culture of intolerance is creating a new generation of conservatives, London Telegraph:

Analysis from market research firm, The Gild, shows that ‘Gen Z’ is the most conservative generation since 1945. The research reveals that ‘Gen Z’ Britons are more likely to favour conservative spending, dislike tattoos and body-piercings, and oppose marijuana legislation.

The youth and student members of the British Left have given up trying to win arguments on principle, preferring to shut down the views of those they opponents. But ‘Gen Z’ live in the time of mass media where anyone’s political views can be shared worldwide at ease. By pushing a “you can’t say that” attitude, the young Left in the UK and the US are reducing their opportunity to respond to conservative ideas, and, as a result of this, conservatism is on the rise.

Nowadays, the only thing that is stopping a student from accessing a new idea is a censorious gag from a student union or NUS apparatchik. Whilst the student Left have historically campaigned in support of causes that the West’s youth have been favourable towards, such as the anti-war and anti-austerity movements, they are now picking on something that is dear to us: freedom of information.

Students of my generation have grown up in an era of mass-communication. Each year has brought new tools for the flow of ideas, conversation and media. The rapid expansion of affordable technology has been matched by the growth of the social media market. When it is common for students to be able to easily interact with anyone in the world via a portable computer that fits in their pocket, nothing seems more silly to us than cliquey calls for censorship.

That is why young people and students are becoming conservatives – they’re the only people making the case for a freedom that they love.

This is the article’s conclusion, but you really need to read the whole thing.  Note especially the quotation from Mario Silva’s speech at Berkeley, sparking the Free Speech Movement.  In contrast, Berkeley students today riot, destroy property, and commit arson in order to prevent a gay conservative from saying what’s on his mind.

[iamnotback]

Sovereignty.

[iamnotback]

Deflationary crypto-currency will correspond with a change from debt-based, industrial age to investment-based, knowledge age.

[iamnotback]

Shelby; If you would need to assess the relative seniority of me and Mircea Popescu, which criteria would you use?

Hi Risto. Please excuse my atrocious ignorance, naivete, and cluelessness w.r.t. the underworld of darkhigh finance. This is a strange new terrain for me. I feel like a child who is struggling to take his first steps without stumbling onto my face.

In particular I would really like to understand what is different if anything about your perspective/approach compared to MP's economic philosophy and assessment of the value of humanity. MP seems to think those with the most wealth should be in control of the monetary system yet he hates democracy and mass marketing because he sees those as ways of enslaving the stupid masses in a farcical, house-of-cards, debt-based economic system. Perhaps it can't be any other way? My technological approach with my attempt to find an improvement to Satoshi's design, has been to try to find a design in which nobody is in control.

So I would judge your ability to enlighten me on these issues—either in public or private communication—as the critieria.

Without publicizing any specific event, your actions indicate you are wealthy.

He wrote about you:

Assuming your the real MP what are your thoughts on the wacky Finnish 'supernode' guy?

Pretty good job.

Mircea Popescu is the owner of MPEX which is pretty much the buttcoin stock exchange, he's famous for lasting longer than most bitcoin businesses without failing and hiring an ex-spammer to do PR on bitcointalk despite her having the same level of charm and interpersonal skills as Josh.

No, actually, most recently I'm famous for fixing the price of Bitcoin back in early April, muchly humiliating Max Keiser in the process, and for leading the MtGox collapse by about two months. The rumour du jour at the Google I/O sloppy seconds conference thing they're doing currently is that in fact Gox' demise was pre-arranged and then announced privately to a secret group during my private and at the time secret conference last month.

Before that I was famous for calling various other "news" and "shocking & surprising developments" a month or two in advance, the girls are keeping a list somewhere.

I work with poor people from a third world, Spanish speaking island called "Holyoke, Massachusetts". If they have Internet, it's through their phones, because they can't afford that and a modern pc, cable Internet, or a car, etc. How the hell are they supposed to download a 10 gigabyte block chain? I guess they could give out the block chain on DVD or Blu-Ray. Ok, to use this currency, first you need a copy of every transaction anybody has ever made...

I'm pretty sure nobody involved actually cares about these guys you work with, or poor people in general. This is a little like asking "but how are the thirld worlders from Holyoke Mass going to handle their own private jets". Well... they aren't.

1) Butts don't scale up at all.
2) Because of 1, decreasing mining rewards, greed and mining being ruled by an oligopoly transaction fees will skyrocket.
3) Butts are inconvenient.
4) Butts are insecure.

Why bitcoins will ultimately go down:
2) Exchanges are run by idiots. This is where the government already intervened.
3) Everyone who uses butts is either an idiot (largest proportion), scammer or otherwise criminal and oftentimes both at the same time. This is the case because non-dumbs and people with legal transactions can easily use other services.
4) This is a long shot, but I believe in the future all transactions will have names attached to them and cash will be phased out. It's just a matter of adoption and convenience now.

Apparently you're unaware who exactly you're talking to, which is chuckle worthy. Here's a thought : at the last count I was worth something north of 3/4 million Butts. Now what ?
(Yes, your numbered list consists of nonsense, most of it self-defeating, some of it self contradictory etc. But that's neither here nor there, what's a list these days, anyone's got one.)

In the last statement quoted above, MP is referring to the fact that what the USG.MIT mass media is painting onto Bitcoin is not what Bitcoin really is. Behind the curtain are whales who are changing the world from a debt-based industrial age to a more meritocratic knowledge age. Again I more than concur with MP's logic on this facet, and I even wrote my Rise of Knowledge, Demise of [Usury] Finance essay several years before the first instance of a similar elucidation I've found from him on his blog (of course he may have had those ideas much earlier, ditto for myself).

Perhaps I don't have the same valuation of humanity as he does. I don't entirely devalue the poor. Maybe he has similar logic to mine and just isn't communicating his ideas effectively to me. Essentially my major disagreement with MP seems to revolve around the mathematical fact which MP also derived, that is essentially Taleb's anti-fragility. It seems that MP punts to a hierarchical system of control, e.g. Satoshi's PoW ledger. But what if instead we had a way to encode the laws of physics into a monetary ledger such that nobody was in control, i.e. not a winner-take-all power vacuum of non-resilience? Wouldn't that be preferred?

What do you think about the developers frequently receiving threats by bitcoiners? Or the guild and certain developers trying to push for a centralised validation services?

Bitcointalk is a collection of mostly poor, mostly uneducated, mostly bizarre folk you wouldn't have on your lawn/daughter/whatever. The various shit they do is representative of Bitcoin in the sense Jeremiah Wright is representative of xtians or Cornel West is representative of academia. Specifically about threaths... I get threatened all the time on teh Interwebs. I've never managed to care (yes I'm aware "the FBI takes internet threats very seriously", but I've never managed to care about that, either).

People will always try to push for centralised something or the other as long as they figure they'll have more market share of the centralised thing than they do now. As various failures are pushed aside to rot into irrelevance they're certain to try and find some sympathetic ear to enforce protectionist measures for them too (que Winklewhoever doods ranting about "regulation"). That topic is best served here.

In short I don't think either are suprising or important.

[iamnotback]

@CoinCube, you wanted to understand money and the knowledge age.

Here is all the edification readers will ever need. Make sure you click the link in the linked post, which will take you to my main elucidation.

[OneUnderBridge]

@CoinCube, you wanted to understand money and the knowledge age.

Here is all the edification readers will ever need. Make sure you click the link in the linked post, which will take you to my main elucidation.

Okay, I'm going to read this stuff in the hopes that it's not some manic-depressive delusional sideways conspiratorial ranting treatise based upon unsound logic which is what I am suspecting it might be. I will read it and if it's sound, I will provide my critique.

[OROBTC]

@CoinCube, you wanted to understand money and the knowledge age.

Here is all the edification readers will ever need. Make sure you click the link in the linked post, which will take you to my main elucidation.

Okay, I'm going to read this stuff in the hopes that it's not some manic-depressive delusional sideways conspiratorial ranting treatise based upon unsound logic which is what I am suspecting it might be. I will read it and if it's sound, I will provide my critique.

I am interested in sound critiques (and even summaries) of iamnotback's work, as it is very dense and hard for me to follow.  So, yes, please do read what you need to, and post back.

I am suspecting that his work likely IS important, perhaps very important, but hesitate to commit the time and energy to try and understand the huge amount of material.

*  *  *

EDIT:

Has CoinCube offered up a general opinion on iamnotback's work?  I have not explored this thread at all thoroughly, and CC is an articulate guy who might be able to tease out main points with suggestions of which routes to follow to for beginners to gain further insight.

[iamnotback]

@CoinCube, so now we come full circle to your OP (and the concept of private fractional reserve banking) and I (we) win:

Re: Miner cartel, Bankster cartel, or an altcoin? Your choice?

I believe what Nash meant is that if there exists a deflationary currency, then the private fractional reserve issuers of long-term loans would have a problem. This is because those who demand exchange to a currency at par to the deflationary currency, demand more over time of any currency which is inflationary or less deflationary.

A deflationary decentralized currency makes private banking non-viable. My blockchain consensus design checkmates Bitcoin's, because PoW can't be deflationary, because the miners either have to be paid with minting and/or transaction fees.

Any way, private banking is going away naturally because private banking is only really viable for fixed capital loans wherein the bank can calculate NAV and cash flow reliably. The knowledge age is incompatible with such financial computations.

Checkmate on Bitcoin, MP and his $billions. I had warned him last year. His control and wealth is going away. Ditto all the banksters. They will own the death of the fixed capital investment age (i.e. industrial age and capex projects), but the knowledge age will bifurcate away from their influence. I predicted all this many years ago.

As explained above, the mathematical topological space of information is exponential vast, such that having the right answer is exponentially more valuable than having an unbounded quantity of random noise:

The end of democracy

...

Interesting that the above essay is essentially the same as my Rise of Knowledge, Demise of Finance essay (which predates his by a few years) in that it is pointing out how knowledge or leadership is non-fungible and how it becomes the post-industrial age economy.

not sure i was aware you were in this thread at that time. Also the dialogue gets easier when there is a collective understanding of a stable [fungible] unit of value.

Money is an information system which attempts to optimize the allocation of our perception of value, so that production is maximized.

But as I have explained and posited upthread, the demise of fungible endeavors in the knowledge age, is reducing the efficacy of fungible finance. Finance won't die overnight, but I posit an inexorable trend is underway.

[iamnotback]

Expounding upon my essay in the OP of this thread:

My understanding of Nash's mathematical theory of ideal money is that if we have unit-of-account and store-of-value for reserves (but not necessarily a medium-of-exchange!) which has a non-manipulable and predictable rate of change of its supply, then that money can form the basis of sound financial systems which correctly value the activities in the economy and thus don't create distortions which lead to for example the failure of private fractional reserve banking, depressions, and misallocation of economic resources and capital.

So this is why the primary value of Bitcoin is the inability to change its protocol. If Bitcoin's protocol can be changed by anyone, then it is no longer a reliable metric in Nash's mathematical scheme.

So Satoshi tried to design a monetary system which would meet the requirements of Nash's ideal money scheme. Because in theory this can bring great benefits to society, such as destroying all the fiat systems, corrupt governments and destroying the inherently correct concept of socialism and democracy. These justifications have been explained in more detail upthread (and in extensive detail in my archives on BCT), so I won't repeat that information.

But as I already explained upthread, the immutability of PoW only exists for the token (blockchain) which has the greatest value, because the finance tail doesn't wag the dog. I explained upthread that whales on a higher valued blockchain can potentially manipulate a lowered valued altcoin as is the case ongoing now with Litecoin wherein they are able to change the protocol.

I also explained upthread how (using MPEx as an example) finance always accumulates to the one with the most reserves, i.e. finance is inherently a winner-take-all construct. It is a gravitational system that sucks everything into itself until it is the entire economy and then it self-destructs. Thus Nash's ideal money can't exist in reality with finance.

Nash wanted an asymptotic solution wherein the number of stable currencies could be unbounded and thus no one could ever gain sufficient omniscient information in order to winner-take-all the financial system. Unfortunately Bitcoin as the center of the financial universe as the only stable currency is of course an abomination and not at all what Nash would have wanted. (Note altcoins are not stable currencies because they are not immutable.) Because of course I explained already upthread how over time there will end up with one whale who has monopolized the Bitcoin economy and thus can change the protocol at-will. This is why I say Bitcoin is the NWO system and was probably created by a think tank funded by an elite globalist such as Rothschild.

Nash required two incongruent things. He wanted a metric to be stable so the (rest of the) financial system could be measured against it, yet he also needed that metric to be absolute (as in its veracity/protocol not being relative to anything which could be controlled or gamed). There are no absolutes in our universe. We live in a relativistic universe which is only constructed from relative perspectives. None of us can even communicate our present to everyone and we can't even communicate our histories incontrovertibly because there is no way to prove an event happened other than by the corroboration of the memories of others who witnessed it (which is not a total ordering thus isn't incontrovertible). For example (but this is by no means the main point of what I am trying to explain here), this weakness in fungible money is why money requires a total ordering consensus so as to order the transactions globally to insure a double-spend wasn't attempted some where else in the universe.

I wrote as @anonymous:

O/T assigned a descriptive model where nodes or their connections are assumed to have unequal value without any model for why they do. Eric posited a generative model wherein communication has a space-time frictional cost. Subsequent commentary has pointed out that the more generalized generative model is that networking (in the generalized conceptualization of communication and/or group formation) has a myriad of genres of opportunity cost (e.g. even political opportunity cost in cooperative games theory), so this can account for preferences in group formation which may in some cases be independent of physical transport costs.

Something else occurred to me while reading the O/T paper before reading Robert Willis's thoughts, and I think combining the opportunity cost generalization with the following insight might model his point. Note that if the possible connections between nodes are limited by opportunity cost weighted compatibility of groups of nodes, then we can approximate a model of the network as connections between groups (aka clusters) of nodes. In this case, the equations for relative value of network mergers changes such that it is possible for the value proposition to invert between small and larger networks, if the larger network has fewer groupings (on an opportunity cost potential connections weighted basis). O/T mentioned clusters but in the context of their descriptive model of assumed unequal value. The key point of opportunity cost is that value is relativistic to the observer. The highly relativistic model is capable of higher-order effects such as those described by Robert Willis. Demographics matter.

I want to investigate whether Verlinde's entropic force emergent information based gravitation model is applicable and perhaps a generative mathematical foundation.

So I believe what Nash worked out in his mind mathematically was that in some hypothetical asymptotic case wherein there are an unbounded number of stable, non-manipulable currencies, then it would not be possible for any player in the system to always win just because he/she held the most reserves, because that player would lack information about whether he/she held the most powerful basket of reserves, so it would thus not be a power vacuum winner-take-all outcome in the theoretical asymptotic case. So Nash was correct that in the asymptotic case, his ideal money is stable, but the problem is that such an asymptotic case isn't known to exist nor does anyone know how to make it come into existence. Even Satoshi's design requires Bitcoin to be the stable currency with the highest value otherwise as I had explained, its immutability is not assured by the game theory.

Precisely four years ago, I wrote Bitcoin : The Digital Kill Switch, and I see now that I was entirely correct. Bitcoin is an abomination of Nash's ideal money scheme. Its end game is one globalist who controls everything. One omnipotent whale who stomps on all life. The NWO-666 outcome. Sorry I can't stand by idle and let that happen! Four years ago, I set out to try to figure out how to fix this problem. I've been working incessantly ever since on this in spite of my disseminated Tuberculosis illness (which I am now undergoing treatment to cure hopefully).

But along my journey of thinking about money every since I got interested in gold in 2006 because by late 2005 I could already see in my mind that a global crisis of debt and socialism was ahead in the real world, I ended up making a discovery and writing it down some time in the period between 2011 and 2013. That essay was Rise of Knowledge, Demise of Finance.

The generative essence of that discovery was that knowledge can't be financed, because unlike manual labor, knowledge production is not fungible. Read the essay I wrote for more explanation.

Also Eric S. Raymond had discovered Linus' Law "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow" when he wrote the seminal The Cathedral and the Bazaar which launched the open source revolution and Eric had invented the term "open source" preferring it over Richard Stallman's "free software". Eric followed that up with the explanation of open source economics models in the Magic Cauldron wherein he explained the opposite of a Tragedy-of-the-Commons is an Inverse Commons which is what open source is.

So what I had figured out that finance would die because the entire point of money is an information system which routes perception of value to those who help the society produce the most. Fungible money worked during the tangible ages (agriculture and industrial) because society needed to aggregate large amounts of capital (because economies-of-scale were paramount in agriculture and industry) and labor was fungible (i.e. replaceable) and thus finance was useful for maximizing production. Companies aggregate fungible resources and economies-of-scale to gain a transactional cost advantage to solve the coordination problem of the Tragedy-of-the-Commons of uncoordinated resources per the Theory of the Firm (and such transactional cost advantages decline in the knowledge age due to technological changes which enable more diverse production with lower economies-of-scale and Inverse Commons coordination). Although this system carried with it huge social problems because laborers had no pricing power unless they could restrict membership (e.g. unions) or otherwise use the government to try to redistribute wealth (or do birth control eugenics to lower their competition with each other). In other words, the broken concepts such as democracy and socialism were ramifications of the fact that labor was too fungible (replaceable) and finance was cardinal. That is why so many hate capitalism, but they don't understand that the fledgling knowledge age (which is already underway!) will change everything to a meritocracy and destroy finance and money.

So we tie all this together and note that we increasingly are exchanging our knowledge and doing knowledge creation in open source Inverse Commons, especially those who produce the most in the new economy of the knowledge age. Eric Raymond had eloquently pointed out that the Inverse Commons of open source is the only known positive scaling law of engineering. And it applies to almost any field of knowledge creation that applies the open source principle (such as what we doing right now here by discussing a new concept and peer reviewing it here).

So I figured out that if I could tie the knowledge production within Inverse Commons to exchange of a fungible monetary unit, I could bridge the gap between where we are now and where we are headed. And that each time some fungible money would be exchanged in this system I designed, then the value of the fungible money would not be in exchange for the knowledge but rather in exchange for the service provided to host the knowledge. Then the fungible portion of exchange would only be a small fraction of the non-fungible value created by the activity. This was a very clever and insightful and essential discovery that I made!

So I had figured out a way to make new blockchain currency which would scale out larger than Bitcoin and thus defeat it while also itself not being vulnerable to manipulation because the fungible finance portion of the economy would orders-of-magnitude inferior in relative value to the knowledge portion. In other words, no one could ever monopolize it.

Then I combined that with a clever consensus algorithm which doesn't require PoW. And voila I named the unpublished design the Bitcoin Killer.

In other words, it achieves Nash's asymptotic ideal money by turning a person's brain into their non-fungible money (the unbounded number of brains is the asymptotic domain) and leverages that huge value creation in order to make the associated fungible token more demanded than Bitcoin. The economy shifts from a predominately monetary one into a predominately reputation and gift culture, wherein we recognize value by accomplishments and not by monetary digits.

Those parasite high finance and Wallstreet thugs have to find a new vocation and actually work together in society or become irrelevant.

I rather like my discovery. I think you will too if I am correct.

[iamnotback]

Satoshi our great NWO master:

What you describe, what you are suggesting, perhaps, is that a benevolent Satoshi has great power to do good, and that, conversely, a malevolent Satoshi has a nuclear bomb in regard to his private keys.

If you wanted to utilize Bitcoin reserves which could not be visibly spent until it was time to enslave the world, how would you do it?

What if you could print paper high powered SDRs implicitly backed by Bitcoin. And then create Basel rounds that progressively ratchet the old banking system to default by requiring Tier 1 reserves of this quality.

@traincarswreck there is no such thing as a stable fungible value. It can't exist as it violates the laws of physics. That is Nash's error. And there is no such thing as a plurality of asymptotically fungible stable values. That is a fantasy in the mind of a crazy, brilliant man who didn't quite figure out his error. His mistake was not realizing that his ideal would only be plausible in the non-fungible case. He was close to realizing that.

Nash was on the right track though. We can have an asymptotic plurality of stable values, when they are all non-fungible. And my project will bring that theory into existence.

Bitcoin will be destroyed. Mankind will prosper. And I will prove you are wrong. But it won't happen overnight. It will take a while yet.

Fungible money will die. Slowly but it will wither away.

That is what my Rise of Knowledge, Demise of Finance points out. Yeah atoms are heavily but they don't get heavier. Relative value will decline (the absolute value will always have mass but that is irrelevant as I had pointed about to Eric Raymond on his blog, c.f. the Dark Enlightenment thread).

There are no stable values in a relativistic universe. But this is a good thing, otherwise we would not exist because the past and the future would collapse into indistinguishable (the light cones of relativity would overlap) if there could be any absolute reference point because relativism wouldn't exist.

End of story.

I am tired of talking. The discussion is redundant. I will reply to @dinofelis' other errors then end my participation in this thread. Adios amigos.

P.S. thanks to all for the discussion.

No one believes you.

Any one who whoreships fungible value can never believe me, for their entire thesis is destroyed. So they will just have to be destroyed. It is their destiny.

Love of money, is the root of all evil.

Love of knowledge and production is glorious and fruitful.

I am a true capitalist. The financiers (especially the whale-most of all financiers) are leeches and parasites.

[CoinCube]

Interesting article on the future of large cities in regards to decentralized solutions from charles hugh smith

Are Cities the Incubators of Decentralized Solutions?
http://www.oftwominds.com/blogmar17/cities-solutions3-17.html

Those urban regions that pursue decentralized, networked, localized solutions will likely prosper as the adaptive advantages of these principles pay self-reinforcing dividends.

In yesterday's entry, I suggested that rather than bemoan the inevitable failure of centralized "fixes," let's turn our efforts to the real solutions: decentralized, networked, localized. To commentators such as Richard Florida, decentralized, networked, localized describes cities.

He describes the transition from central states imposing solutions to cities being the incubators of solutions as The Most Disruptive Transformation in History: How the clustering of knowledge lays bare the need to devolve power from the nation-state to the city.

Florida has authored three books on the increasing concentration of the "creative class" and capital in urban zones--cities and their surrounding satellite cities, suburbs and exurbs: The Rise of the Creative Class and Who's Your City?: How the Creative Economy Is Making Where to Live the Most Important Decision of Your Life.

More recently, he addressed the soaring costs of living in these urban area in The New Urban Crisis: How Our Cities Are Increasing Inequality, Deepening Segregation, and Failing the Middle Class—and What We Can Do About It.

Florida's main thesis is straightforward: solutions are coming from city governments, institutions and enterprises, not central states. Since the world's populace has rapidly urbanized, this transformation affects the majority of people in both the developed and developing worlds.
I've often written about the need to move from centralization to decentralization: centralized command-and-control mechanisms are optimized for the economy and society of the late 1940s - early 1960s, not the economy/society of today that is being creatively disrupted by the 4th Industrial Revolution (digital communications, software, automation, robotics, Internet).
Florida's premise makes a great deal of common-sense, for the basic reason that different cities face different problems (or different versions of the same problem), and each regional mega-city is embedded in a different state and economy.

Cities also have different resources and dominant political cultures.
In effect, devolving political power to cities would enable a suite of local solutions rather than a single "fix" imposed by a topdown centralized authority.

This article illustrates the spectrum of cities (the categories are somewhat arbitrary, of course): The Megacity Economy: How Seven Types Of Global Cities Stack Up.
To understand why the city may be the ideal political-social-economic unit to manage successful adaptation, look at these three maps of the U.S. The first reflects the GDP generated within each county; the second shows real growth in GDP by region, and the third displays the wages of the so-called "creative class"--those with high-demand skillsets, education and experience.


The spikes reflect enormous concentrations of GDP. This concentrated creation of goods and services generates jobs and wealth, and that attracts capital and talent. These are self-reinforcing, as capital and talent drive wealth/value creation and thus GDP.



Unsurprisingly, there is significant overlap between regions with high GDP and strong GDP expansion. The engines of growth attract capital and talent.



Those urban regions that pursue decentralized, networked, localized solutions will prosper as the adaptive advantages of these principles pay self-reinforcing dividends.
Those urban regions that pursue the hierarchical, one "solution" fits all, high-cost bureaucratic model of central states will sink into the same cesspool of corruption, cronyism, sclerosis and failure to adapt that characterize central states.

If you found value in this content, please join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com.
Check out both of my new books, Inequality and the Collapse of Privilege ($3.95 Kindle, $8.95 print) and Why Our Status Quo Failed and Is Beyond Reform ($3.95 Kindle, $8.95 print). For more, please visit the OTM essentials website.

[STT]

China and Russia don't have the socialism and pension debts problem that the West has (their debts can be written off as their demographics and unfunded social liabilities are not yet a huge inertia so their downturn can bottom in 2020 whereas the West will continue to disintegrate even after 2032); thus as China is rebalancing their economy from the Industrial Age exports to the Knowledge Age service industry and consumption (see upthread links to Michael Pettis' blogs), they will displace the West, become the new financial center of the world, and be very strong.

China and Russia are of course part of the BRICS conventional thinking of next generation growth in the world.   China has failed to see the growth it should have in the last 17 years.  They have been part of open global trade and the opportunity for more has been there.     Large amounts of growth in China has transformed it partly, maybe even surprising to us in the west in its extent but still far less then a capable developing country like China should have seen.
They show the failed inept government we suffer thanks to the burden of communism and also tying their currency to the dollar has not enabled the grass roots strength it would have.  China does not parallel the growth of the new union of united american states or that Europe saw during the industrial revolution.  In both cases those economies had a capitalist system that allowed for the common worker to become far better off.

There is a cost to failed policies from Chinese government, one reason they will fail in future growth also is their falling working population.  It makes for a strange headline that USA is ahead of China in growth in one vital area which is actual population growth. People are the strongest most versatile asset a country can have and by default are incredibly productive but China lacks this, they will have to do more with less and rising inflation from wages will be part of their dynamic now and the worlds also due to their size.
   The Chinese economy may transform but it will not do nearly as well as it could have if left unhindered.   Its too late to fix Chinese demographic and they will suffer as a nation for decades, I guess they are similar to Japan and the most optimistic outlook is they can export labour needs similarly.   I do not see them being a world leader unless somehow the whole world also fails and cannot beat a communist command economy for a better direction.

I hope India does better but Im waiting not expecting that

[OROBTC]

...

STT

I think that you have the correct read on China. 

I remember reading that "Japan got rich before it got old, but China is worried that it will get old before it gets rich."

Demographics are against China.  And, IMO, Communism (even their hybrid system) will work against China.  Also China has horrible environmental problems.