Economic Devastation

[AnonyMint]

I am happy to see some provocative comments has spawned much discussion.

Here are so more...

rpietila, we can't give away knowledge. I have tried to give away my knowledge and I can't even force it down the readers' throats. Knowledge is impossible to bottle up and distribute. Knowledge is dynamic, diverse, spawns from fitness as motivated by the diverse situations that humans encounter.

Did you just claim that all schools, universities, and technical books have zero effect on teaching people?

If you can't teach someone something you are supposed to know, it's not usually his fault, it's yours; for lacking the ability to actually KNOW the subject good enough.

I hope you realize how incredibly socialist and anti-capitalism and eugenics directed your illogical position is. You wish to make others responsible for the initiative and effort of others. Hey I grew up in all black schools in the slums of Baton Rouge and New Orleans, but that did not stop me from learning, because I was eager to learn. I would learn more at home in my room with all my books and gadgets or in the back yard digging up bugs and studying behavior than I did in school sometimes. I regret the internet was not available when I was 5 years old. I can only imagine, as I can see my (and I am sure your) ability to generate knowledge accelerated upon the network effects of the internet.

Education and rote learning is not knowledge because it is in the past. Knowledge is created by the ability to think and react to new scenarios. Autodidactism is the future because it is both more efficient and it generates the initiative to create knowledge.

Edumaction

Thinking like this can be dangerous, I warn you in advance.  As long as you don't remain in denial, the trouble with right thinking is that once it gets into your brain, you can't erase it.  And it will swim around in your brain until eventually, you might start to accept it, until it will come out of your mouth and that's when it might get you into trouble.

How so?  In many cases, people are not allowed to think for themselves like I do, but rather, they must do as their bosses tell them to do, or what the "culture" says is "politically correct".  It's like this for teachers, for journalists, and for brokers.  They are all employed to push an agenda.  Teachers push liberalism in social studies, journalists push what their global media masters demand, and brokers push the stocks on the books of their investment houses.  I suppose many other professions are like this, from the police, to lawyers, and perhaps most union jobs, politicians, and I'm sure I'm missing other good examples.

Hey, it's even dangerous for me, because I may alienate my customers, so even I have to be careful.

I want to limit my discussion to government education in today's letter, otherwise there is just too much to cover.

I have two examples from school I'd like to share.  In my High School Junior English class back in 1987, I was getting discouraged.  I kept getting B's on my essays, despite my best efforts at analyzing the literature up for discussion.  I didn't know what else to do, and one day I just gave up.  Instead of analysis, I simply said how great the literature was, and I parroted back the same exact analysis that was discussed in class with absolutely zero new insights.  To hide the lack of real discussion and analysis in my essay, I enlarged my handwriting to fill the page.  I was expecting a D minus, or even an F.  I was almost ashamed of myself.

Some of you might guess what happened next.  I got an A.  My first A.  I was simply astounded.  Flabbergasted.  Surprised beyond belief.  I could not believe it.  I seriously wondered why.  I went to the teacher.  I explained myself.  I admitted there was no analysis.  She rebuked me.  Of course there was analysis; the same one we discussed in class, she said.  Exactly, I said.  Exactly, she said.  What?  I don't get it, don't you want us to analyse it?  But you did, she said.  And you kept it short, simple, to the point, and you were exactly on point, and understood the class discussion exactly, she said.  But I felt I didn't analyse anything; I felt like a tape recorder with zero brain activity or real analysis.  I brought no new insights to the table, nothing original, no indication that I was thinking about what we read.  But I showed I was paying attention in class, she said.  That's thinking about it.  Wow.  I don't know if the goal of my teacher was an intent to crush my spirit, but wow.

Young People Should Work for Free

Student Loans, The Next Bubble?

Student Loans, the Next Debt Bubble

P.S. A high school track & field sports friend of mine [name redacted as it violates privacy], who ended up as an adjunct professor at Georgetown and a head of an R&D department at SAIC (unfortunately that means filing patents), said I was the one who caused him to grasp university Physics (we ended up at the same university). I remember studying with him for roughly 1 hour one day. That is effective! Because I cut directly the generative essence of the matter and provided the insight for how to think for oneself on the subject matter.

[AnonyMint]

Too many long words. Any chance of a summary?

Sadly the links above are a summary. That's why we are so screwed. The problem is sufficiently complex and subtle that society as a whole and most individuals will never understand it.  

Essentially society is trapped in a cycle of ever increasing economic inefficiency. Our collective lack of understanding of the fundamental cause will result in attempted "fixes" that will worsen the underlying problem. The end result is economic collapse. The world will not end but we are facing something that is likely to exceed the Great Depression.

To understand why, and why society cannot avoid it (although individuals can) you have to understand the linked works. It's not an easy read.

That is an excellent (astute, perceptive, efficiently summarized) high-level perspective of the collectivism problem and individual opportunity, yet doesn't explain the root cause. And of course because attempts to explain the root cause (e.g. the definition of knowledge and its implications) are misunderstood because it is possible for disbelievers to pigeon-hole various statements to obfuscate the whole.

[AnonyMint]

Before I answer, here is another quote of myself from another thread:

I am not into the 666 biblical thing. I just want to stop the bastards such as the Bush clan, Hillary Clinton, Dianne Feinstein, NSA, etc from taking away my freedom.

farfiman, I've read that in the 1920s the Americans thought they'd entered a nirvana as they had been transformed in a matter of decades from an agrarian life with horses, lanterns, stage coaches communication to an industrial one with cars, radio, electricity, radio, etc..

The Second Industrial Revolution (which came as a result of the network effects of the First Industrial Revolution) caused massive technological unemployment, yet of course it also raised the standard-of-living and eventually created many more higher-skilled jobs. If we trace history, we can see this pattern repeating every 78 years = 3.1459 x 26 year maturity generations. Before the First Industrial Revolution were two soil technology revolutions which transformed agrarian productivity and caused massive unemployment.

8fold, there seems to always be a major war during each of the depressions caused by these periods of massive technological unemployment. 78 years before War World 2, was the US Civil War.

Any way, 1929 + 78 = 2007 (the year the real-estate bubble burst in USA and PIIGS and the depression started, the depression which is currently dead-cat bouncing and many are mistaking this for a recovery). The downturns typically have a duration ranging between 26 to 31.459 years. I was amazed when a recent Oxford study predicted a loss of 45% of existing jobs to automation within 20 years, i.e. by 2033.

Rival and rpietila, indeed the rich (in stored claims on manual, fungible labor) man can't generate knowledge. The poor (in useless stored claims on manual, fungible labor) can generate knowledge. The rich fool is just a usury (loans, bonds, dividends, hard-on money, and ponzi pump & dump) parasite, and I believe the knowledge revolution will destroy his ability to parasite on society and boast about it. I intend to be part of that, hopefully coming to a Bitcoin theater near you this holiday season.

Note this process isn't likely to be 100% complete ever, and certainly not even 50% complete any time soon. So stored capital remains useful for the meantime and will diminish but not entirely disappear in my lifetime. For example, the bastards still have their cartel on the energy we need to produce knowledge with (although we continue improve the efficiency of our gadgets, cars, etc).

rpietila, we can't give away knowledge. I have tried to give away my knowledge and I can't even force it down the readers' throats. Knowledge is impossible to bottle up and distribute. Knowledge is dynamic, diverse, spawns from fitness as motivated by the diverse situations that humans encounter.

Revenues will scale down with less required capital stock, due to lower costs of producing knowledge (only need a computer and home office). Thus more massive deflation ahead.

Large capital is going to running around trying to find a home, but it will be difficult to find economies-of-scale. The best investments will be very tiny.

I documented in the thread from which those quotes originate. You can click the link on a quote to go to thread (and post) where it comes from.

Specifically a recent Oxford study predicts 45% of all existing jobs will be lost to automation by 2033. This confirms we are in a period of radical technological unemployment. This appears to happen every 78 years. The difference is this time we are all tied together in socialism by central banks. You can re-read my quotes from the prior post to weigh the gravity of this thud of a realization.

If you are arguing that automation will lead to long-term unemployment, I think you are wrong.  Authors have written extensively on this subject since the 1900s (and perhaps earlier).  Many were worried that machines would replace men.  What we have seen is that automation simply results in higher efficiency and unforseen job opportunities on the automation side.  This seems obvious to me, so you must be arguing something else despite what I'm reading here.

I agree of course that technological advancement leads to more employment, not less, over a long enough horizon. The problem is the social adjustment process interim and the inertia that can't adjust fast enough and how the inertia can actually make it worse for a while. If this inertia is too strong, we go into a Dark Age as the collective will destroy itself by attacking all capital and knowledge, i.e. the Middle Ages after the fall of Rome:

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/08/24/yes-in-a-mad-max-dark-age-not-even-gold-has-value/

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/08/10/can-europe-hyperinflate/

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/03/27/are-we-head-to-a-mad-max-scenario/
(Armstrong spent $20 million on research to construct the silver chart on that linked page above)

http://armstrongeconomics.com/research/a-brief-history-of-world-credit-interest-rates/3847-2/

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/09/20/can-we-blink-before-a-dark-age/

http://armstrongeconomics.com/research/monetary-history-of-the-world/the-monetary-history-of-the-greek-world/chronology/
(there was even a Dark Age in the Greek period)

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/01/29/8797/
(he means the 51 year private wave, vs 309 major cycle)

http://armstrongeconomics.com/models/7219-2/
(his cycle model explained, note the computer found it by correlating the ~$100+ million of data he had collected)

And the big difference compared to the early 1900s is we now have central banks in every country which have prevented the bank runs and mini-depression corrections that were regularly seen in the 1800s. Thus the collectivism has backstopped itself and run up the debt of the world to roughly 300% of GDP, meaning all of us would have to not eat for 3 years to pay it off. There is this erroneous (linked author Michael Pettis is a widely respected economist) notion that debt doesn't have to be paid and it is an illusion.

Let me link together some puzzle pieces for you that most do not see.

Worse, the $quadrillion of derivatives kept the world's capital locked into a (going on 31 years) bond bubble.

Here is a quote from the link above:

What is nonsense regarding backwardation? (My guess - markets are so rigged that nothing just matters)

Armstrong explained it:

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/03/06/gold-backwardation-the-real-story/

The Gold backwardation has been distorted as all sorts of reasons for everything. Normally, this is the market condition wherein the price of a forward or futures contract is trading below the expected spot price at contract maturity. Consequently, the resulting futures or forward curve is “inverted” whereby it is negative because gold is trading at even lower prices. This is simply driven by interest rates.

Backwardation in this case is not indicative of any shortage whatsoever or a collapse in “trust” of the dollar. The dollar has been rising! Just look at German interest rates on short-term paper went negative by 0.6%. This has NOTHING to do with fiat and people losing faith in paper money –yada, yada, yada. If that were true, interest rates would not COLLAPSE, they would SOAR because people would not trust government bonds and they would have to pay up.

Backwardation in gold is a money issue and it is simply the yield curve – nothing more. It has gone negative just as US government T-Bills went negative.

The carrying cost of gold in a future's contract is related to the cost of short-term borrowing. Armstrong claims that he showed the Islamists how to earn "interest rates" by selling gold forward in futures, since they could not religiously earn interest in normal ways.

This is (at least one reason) why the $quadrillion derivatives credit-swaps are holding up the financial system. This is how the Arabs get the oil money into the gold futures markets and keep the western central banks ZIRP policy going.

You've just read something that nobody else ever published (as far as I know).

Now you know why I know there is a global implosion coming.

The chart below shows the declining interest rates since 1981, which is the bond bubble because gains in bonds are the inverse of interest rates because as the current rate declines the bonds paying the older higher rate are worth relatively more (they pay more interest to the holder), i.e. those who purchased 30 year Tnotes 30 years ago are at their maximum gains now in price appreciation. We can't relate the same implications for the peak in 1920, because at that time interest was paid in gold (you could go to the bank and demand gold for your paper dollar), thus it was impossible to write derivatives because someone could call them in (crash them) just by cashing dollars for gold (as France was doing in the late 1960s causing Nixon to close the gold window in 1971). So our situation is inverted now with money and interest.

Agreed. And they already do. Look what Satoshi did. Watch what I do to Bitcoin as one man.

You're arguing that there will be a push towards away from long-term investments, and I'm arguing that the customer gets what they want.  Your average investor isn't a captain of industry.  They want to squirrel away their unused money for safekeeping.  The market will do its best to offer this to them, as unrealistic as it may be ...

Do you have a model? I don't see your model.

My model is look at the cost of production of knowledge. Factor in the very low-level of fixed capital required. Before we needed capital to launch our ideas, because everything was physical, i.e. build a factory to produce it. In my first s/w company in the 1980s, I had to spend capital on a building to hold all the physical stock, for shipping department, etc.. I was able to sell about 30,000 copies of Word Up. In my second s/w company I distributed freeware/shareware Cool Page to roughly a million+ users by 2001 and sold again about 30,000 copies. As you can see, the income per copy used is declining, yet the knowledge spread is increasing.

I have a front-row seat. I've been in the model. I am living it.

Let me give you an example. Right now I challenge any one to go buy a CPU-only coin design before I release mine.

You can't. Only I know how to make one.

When you make absolute statements that require knowledge of what all sentient beings are capable of / developing, it leads readers to believe that you are disingenuous.

Of course I can't know all of whom are working on what, although I do know about every person who is working on an altcoin who has stated so in this forums.

My point is that throwing money out there probably won't change the situation much. Either there are people who have the insight or there aren't (they may be quiet which would probably be wise). The amount of money offered isn't likely to change much the number of people who have that insight. It could cause more people to think about that problem, because at this point money is still reasonably important to people, because the knowledge revolution hasn't really kicked into high gear just yet. We are getting very close, and major turmoil is coming soon (certainly not later than 2024, and my guess is 2016 to be a tipping point based on much insight I've read from Martin Armstrong who Murray Rothbard said has a front row seat on international capital flows given Armstrong ran a $3 trillion hedge fund, the largest ever)

I was trying incite competitiveness, because am hoping others will launch similar technology in order to obscure who is who. Anonymity (plausible deniability) is very important in my opinion.

Knowledge that we need doesn't generate from capital. It generates from serendipity and fitness of diverse humans matched up to diverse needs.

We only needed capital when our needs were primarily fixed investment, e.g. factory buildings, factory machines, etc.

The 3D printer and the computer ends that.

The next 20 years will be so radical of change, you will think you live in Jetson's world by 2033. Flying cars, etc.. all manufactured by a guy on a computer.

I think most would agree with this.  Seems obvious to me.  What isn't obvious is how this necessarily leads to a decreased demand for long-term investments.

Because knowledge development can't be foreseen. When I sit down to write a program, its design invariably changes so much from the original thoughts about what and when it would be a reality. By the time get to release, the entire landscape may have changed.

More saliently because knowledge becomes a larger share of development, and fixed capital becomes a smaller share. Thus a deflating demand for fixed capital relative to knowledge share.

Saving will still be wise  yet we will to an increasing degree save in our brain. Instead of being lazy, one would be learning and creating new store of ability to create knowledge.

My thesis is money will have a declining function as a longer-term store-of-value. But not to zero, and not overnight.

It will be a difficult adjustment for most people. They will futilely resist. As was the case for the Luddites in the Industrial Revolution. We are in the First Computer Revolution. Second will be quantum computing.

I don't think they'll resist at all.  It doesn't take long for people to embrace something that (ostensibly) makes their life easier/happier/etc.

They are resisting now. What do you think socialism and central banking is all about? Why is Obama so popular?

[Rassah]

Could the counterargument be that capital seeking collectivism (i.e. not open source collectivism) requires capital to be immobile and easy to seize, and that we now have systems to keep capital extremely mobile and difficult to seize? I.e. used to be that to have a lot of capital, you either stored it in a bank or property, both of which are difficult to move and easy to seize, while now we can store a lot of capital in digital currencies, and those who own it can't simply have it taken from them, and can easily move around the world undetected if they need to.

But this is not a counterargument. All collectivism requires is that capital be seizable by force.

If large amounts of capital becomes hidden and mobile it may avoid being seized. This will result in collectivism starving at a faster rate (requiring it to consume more of the resources it can sieze) then it would otherwise do. In effect this will accelerate the crisis not avoid it.

Oh, um, well, yeah, maybe. Imperial evidence shows that exact thing in Venezuela, and possibly the opposite thing in USSR, where collapsing collectivism resulted in the ruling party stealing as much as they could before getting out, while economic freedom was being very slightly expanded. Though it may be because people in Venezuela are in a democracy, while people in USSR were essentially a dictatorship, so the former could demand more collectivism, while the later could not.
So, when SHTF, all rich people should GTFO to North Korea?

[Rassah]

He defines knowledge here
http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html#Thought_Isn't_Fungible

Since the portion of the human genome pertaining to the brain has an entropy in the millions or billions, each human brain is potentially at least one-in-a-million or one-in-a-billion unique.

Just an FYI, brain isn't an organ like a heart, where the genes tell it what it's structure should be and how many valves or parts it should have. It's a network of neurons, which actually physically change based on what you experience through life, which grows new neurons as old ones, along with their links, die. So brain entropy is not dependent on the number of genes in the human genome, but on the number of neurons in the brain and the number and variability of networned connections those neurons could make. So the entropy is vastly larger than one-in-a-billion.

[Rassah]

Because knowledge development can't be foreseen. When I sit down to write a program, its design invariably changes so much from the original thoughts about what and when it would be a reality. By the time get to release, the entire landscape may have changed.

More saliently because knowledge becomes a larger share of development, and fixed capital becomes a smaller share. Thus a deflating demand for fixed capital relative to knowledge share.

Saving will still be wise  yet we will to an increasing degree save in our brain. Instead of being lazy, one would be learning and creating new store of ability to create knowledge.

My thesis is money will have a declining function as a longer-term store-of-value. But not to zero, and not overnight.

But this vast and rapid increase in knowledge didn't decrease the amount of physical items that we demand, it increased them. You can now convert your knowledge into long-term store-of-value, and spend it on thousands of different electronics and knowledge derived tools. So the need and demand for capital, and a wider variety of capital, actually increased, along with the need for long-term capital used to acquire that new technology.
Your counterargument is that 3D printing will make the physical capital creation of those tools so easy as to be irrelevant. Maybe. However, 3D printers are limited in what they are able to produce (can't print CPUs or specific chemicals for inputs now), and there is a good chance that knowledge will always outpace the capapibilty of 3D printers, meaning some things will always need to be done by hand.
Also, this argument seems to be very similar to the ludite argument that as machines replace labor, there will be less and less labor, and thus employment. Replace knowledge with labor, and machines with knowledge. I could argue that, as knowledge increases and the rate and capability of automated capital production increases, there will be an increased pace of specialized knowledge creation and specialized capital production creating the type of capital we haven't even imagined yet, just as automation replacing jobs ended up creating jobs we haven't imagined in early 1900's.

[AnonyMint]

Somebody farted?

Rassah


Unignore
   
Re: Economic Devastation
Today at 01:58:29 PM
Show/Hide
This user is currently ignored.
Rassah


Unignore
   
Re: Economic Devastation
Today at 02:09:23 PM
Show/Hide
This user is currently ignored.
Rassah


Unignore
   
Re: Economic Devastation
Today at 02:37:48 PM
Show/Hide
This user is currently ignored.

[AnonyMint]

Idiots will never address the salient point. They will always talk about things that don't address the salient point.

The amount of fixed capital need per unit of knowledge produced is declining. And the capital need to produce tangible goods from knowledge is decreasing.

Mike Fulton and I wrote the worlds first accelerated printer drivers for a laser printer, TurboJet back in the 1980s. I watched how the laser printer (and Linotype driven by Postscript) obliterated all that high fixed capital publishing.

Now we have the laser printer for 3D, called 3D printers.

I have no time to read or respond to idiots who fart all over the threads and spend their day stalking me.

[Compton]

I thought you thought the western civilization would collapse because the Bible said so:

http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/shelby-moore/major-frauds-of-humanity

http://www.financialsensearchive.com/fsu/editorials/2009/0320.html

And I thought if we bought silver from you, the "imminent" (as of 2006) collapse would mean $3000/oz:

http://www.coolpage.com/commentary/economic/shelby/Urgent_Warning.html

Tell us how you feel about Jews while we are here:
   
@makerofthings7 the underwriters were short. No mass movement happens without the banksters owning it. When my coolpage.com reached a million users, they sent a Jew to buy me out. I will not mention his name. The poll discussion is finally coming to realize this. You do what they want, even if you don't know you are, or you are out (one way or the other). – Shelby Moore III yesterday

(from http://www.coolpage.com/commentary/economic/shelby/mining%20-%20Any%20counter-proof%20that%20Satoshi%20Nakamoto%20did%20not%20design%20a%20ponzi%20scheme%20on%20purpose%20%20-%20Bitcoin%20Beta%20-%20Stack%20Exchange.htm)

[AnonyMint]

Ah I see the lowlife, sewer-trolling, character assassins are digging around now trying to dig up some raw sewage to eat.

I thought you thought the western civilization would collapse because the Bible said so:

http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/shelby-moore/major-frauds-of-humanity

http://www.financialsensearchive.com/fsu/editorials/2009/0320.html

Well you thought that because sewer rats can't comprehend what they read. Try reading again.

And I thought if we bought silver from you, the "imminent" (as of 2006) collapse would mean $3000/oz:

http://www.coolpage.com/commentary/economic/shelby/Urgent_Warning.html

I see you went hunting around in that directory because I didn't bother to put an /index.html file there. Rectified.

That was a private email draft that I composed and was thinking sending to my Cool Page userbase, and never did send. And no one saw that except me.

And no where did I imply timing of a collapse. You quote one word out-of-context. In fact, the 2007/8 financial collapse was imminent, you fscking idiot troll.

And no where did I predict the price would go to $3000 by 2007 or 2008. I wrote about ratios between available precious metals and world's money supply, just like today people write about the potential of Bitcoin. In fact I did make a public prediction about silver price in 2010, and it was exactly correct in May 2011 as I had predicted.

Btw, I do hope you ignore my writings, because I am going to be laughing at you.

And you even try to stir up antisemitism where there was only a euphemism. If you could have only read my private email exchanges recently defending Jews against those who were accusing them of being the source of banksterism.

Edit: Readers have the advantage of reading in this thread the culmination of what took me 4 - 5 years to figure out. Of course in 2006, I didn't yet have it completely figured out. Did you!? And in 2010, I still hadn't figured out that the problem is hard money. It finally started to click in later in 2010, when I wrote those seminal articles which are linked in the OP of this thread.

[Rassah]

The amount of fixed capital need per unit of knowledge produced is declining. And the capital need to produce tangible goods from knowledge is decreasing.

Ignoring your insults, sure, but that's not what I said. If X is a unit of knowledge, for every increase in knowledge X, the amount of capital needed to create a single item becomes -1*X, but the amount of variety of items that are now possible to create with that knowledge is now 2*X. For example, the amount of capital to produce an iPad is falling, but the amount of capital to produce the hundreds of other competing tablets is rising rapidly. If all we had was one phone, one tablet, one flat screen TV, and one computer, your argument would be valid. But with increased knowledge, we are having an ENORMOUS increase in competition and choice, which means an explosions in the number of factories and specialized manufacturing facilities needed to create the capital enabled by that knowledge.  And just as a job getting automated frees up labor capital to apply to new more technical jobs, freeing up production capital frees up that capital to be used in more complex and innovative tech.

Mike Fulton and I wrote the worlds first accelerated printer drivers for a laser printer, TurboJet back in the 1980s. I watched how the laser printer (and Linotype driven by Postscript) obliterated all that high fixed capital publishing.

I remember TurboJet. I used to work for a computer company that also ran a printing service, and they had pretty close ties to Mike and TurboJet. But, again, someone invented the Nokia candybar style dumb phone, and now there are no Nokia candy-bar style dumb phones. So what? Knowldge obliterated that one simple device that used few components, and replaced it with thousands of much more complex devices that use hundreds of complex components.

Now we have the laser printer for 3D, called 3D printers.

Which I specifically addressed above:

3D printers are limited in what they are able to produce (can't print CPUs or specific chemicals or materials for now), and there is a good chance that knowledge will always outpace the capapibilty of 3D printers, meaning some things will always need to be done by hand.
Also, this argument seems to be very similar to the ludite argument that as machines replace labor, there will be less and less labor, and thus employment. Replace knowledge with labor, and machines with knowledge. I could argue that, as knowledge increases and the rate and capability of automated capital production (AKA 3D Printing) increases, there will be an increased pace of specialized knowledge creation and specialized capital production creating the type of capital we haven't even imagined yet, just as automation replacing jobs ended up creating jobs we haven't imagined in early 1900's.

Readers have the advantage of reading in this thread the culmination of what took me 4 - 5 years to figure out

Hopefully it will take you less time than that to figure out bitcoin. In one thread I even noticed you claim that bitcoin price follows mining difficulty...

[AnonyMint]

Rassah give up. You don't comprehend. Period. Please stop stalking me in every thread.

Silly people. Wasting time. Don't have any real work to do.

CoinCube I appreciate your appreciation, but I would rather you had not tried to promote my highly obtuse articles. This audience is not yet ready.

[Rassah]

I guess I'll just chuck this up, along with all his "BITCOIN IS DOOMED AND HERE ARE ALL WAYS TO HAXOR IT!" to his extremely bad skills at explaining things in ways anyone but him can understand. Maybe things would be more productive for AnonyMint if, instead of reading posts from people on his ignore list, and talking about how big and awesome and smart he is, he actually went and coded something that SHOWED what the hell he is talking about.

BTW, I was considering starting a threat where we could simulate the Transaction Withholding Attack, having Anony take the role of the evil cartel, and roleplay with some other forumites the decisions that miners and users would take in response to his attempt of an attack, but that would likely be a massive waste of time. Especially since we already know that the only purpose would be to educate AnonyMint about how bitcoin actually works.

[LostDutchman]

That is the last few years news.

If you mean I wrote those in roughly 2010, then correct. If you mean they are not still applicable, then I disagree.

A recent Oxford study predicts 45% of all existing jobs will be replaced by automation by 2033.

The socialism is rising globally simultaneously the number of technologically unemployed is increasing.

What will happen is the old world economy will confiscate most of the capital, thus destroying by redistributing it to the technologically unemployed, i.e. peak socialism. Yet this redistribution will never work out, because vested interests will steal it (e.g. see the QE now) and top-down is always dumb, e.g. ObamaCare requires men to have paternity insurance (which is only at its infancy and if we reach the Hitler stage the socialism will be culling itself due to lack of resources).

So the old forms of capital are dead-men standing. The millionaires will be wiped out.

Perhaps only those who can find a way to move their capital into knowledge and the new virtual knowledge economy will possibly cross the chasm ahead.

However, I won't say this is all absolute, there will probably be leakage and there might be many clever, diverse ways that humans cope, survive, and even excel.

I include Bitcoin in the old forms of capital because it did not address anonymity, currency distribution, and secure mining. Most readers think it did, because they haven't studied it deeply enough.

P.S. I am not affiliated with CoinCube in any way.

Edit: Martin Armstrong often quotes Herbert Hoover about international currency movement at that time of the early 1900s into the Great Depression.

"During this new stage of the depression, the refugee gold and the foreign government reserve deposits were constantly driven by fear hither and yon over the world.

We were to see currencies demoralized and governments embarrassed as fear drove the gold from one country to another.

In fact, there was a mass of gold and shortterm credit which behaved like a loose cannon on the deck of the world in tempest-tossed era."

Herbert Hoover Memiors, 1952 Greatest Bull Market In History, p354

Capital today is running hither searching for a safe haven and not finding one. Armstrong often says it was like re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titantic.

At that time, it was the technological unemployment due to the  Second Industrial Revolution that kicked in with factories that accelerated the demise of the cottage industries in Europe, which thus caused capital from Europe to run around seeking a safe haven. It mostly ended up in the USA.

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/12/01/gold-hedge-against-making-money/

The USA was bankrupt in 1896 when JP Morgan lent it gold. After World War I and II, the USA had 76% of the total world gold reserves and that is what the dollar became the reserve currency. It was WAR and capital flows that made the dollar what it is. Europe became too socialistic after the wars and thus remained second-rate.

Very interesting and I am going to take some time to consider your hypothesis.

I will tell you this, I am a beleiver in Crypto and am ging to mine my way and the way for others in to wealth and comfortable retirement.

My $.02.

[CoinCube]

CoinCube I appreciate your appreciation, but I would rather you had not tried to promote my highly obtuse articles. This audience is not yet ready.

Not most of them no. But I am sure a few are.

Thanks for posting all of that supplementary info above. Good stuff there I am going to have to work my way through it this weekend.

Your work stands on its own merits. If a majority don't understand so be it. As the saying goes you can lead a horse to water but you cant make him drink. To be honest I am happy just to get a large number of people to read them. The audience will never be ready.

P.S. When you have time consider publishing you thesis in a formal journal.
It is my opinion that this idea ranks on par with the invisible hand in terms of importance

[AnonyMint]

Hopefully it will take you less time than that to figure out bitcoin. In one thread I even noticed you claim that bitcoin price follows mining difficulty...

I wouldn't write him off completely... At least not yet.

Yes, according to most simplified models, mining difficulty lags price. However, it's also easy to miss some feedback loops or simply fail to think of some unique, creative game-plans that one or more participants might have.

I actually picked up that idea from franky ("you've been franked") in the past week or two. I did not verify if it is true, I took his word for it.

But now I am going to piss all over Rassah's silly little thinking. I don't know why I bother (he is on ignore because he speaks only noise, meaning a low signal-to-noise ratio meaning a huge waste of my time and also he boasts about his noise and doesn't even frame it as a cordial discussion).

I never argued that one follows the other, just that they are in fact so far correlated. My stance is that if the security of the network can not be incredibly tiny compared to the market cap*, because otherwise there is too much incentive to not buy up 51% of the hash rate and take over the coin. Governments for one have this compelling incentive, because they don't exist if they can't tax and regulate money creation. Cartels another. Competing altcoins another.

* yet another reason we need a CPU-only coin, so the currency users (i.e. spenders) are the miners. That is another hint for you CoinCube.

[AnonyMint]

That's a pertinent issue that I don't think AnonyMint, Bitcoin's evil critic

I have praised the genius of proof-of-work. I am criticizing design choices other than that.

Where Anonymint's theory of creativity doesn't ring true, is that the metaphysical 'Subject' clearly has free will

I don't know what causes you to equate entropy (or more saliently here equivalently degrees-of-freedom) with lack of free-will. It is precisely the opposite. Without degrees-of-freedom, i.e. some free-will, we couldn't exist. As I have written that without friction (chance or free-will or imperfection), the future and the present would be the same, because there would be no other possibility. I think you are misunderstanding what entropy means, and that it is irreversible, i.e. coinductive. I will quote myself from that link:

You are considering the universal set from the perspective of an absolute outside observer. It is not surprising that it is untenable given there is no known outside observer of our universe.

What I have done is shown that such an outside observer's perspective is equivalent to the bottom type. When we as insider observers view the universal set, we only see part of it. And we can only share what we see in common, i.e. a conjunction.

For further insight, I refer myself and readers to the prior discussions between blablahblah and myself in the other thread.

[LostDutchman]

From "Way of The Gun"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0202677/trivia?tab=qt&ref_=tt_trv_qu

"Parker:

 "There is a natural order. The way things are meant to be. An order that says that the good guys always win. That you die when it's your time, or you have it coming. That the ending is always happy, if only for someone else. Now at some point it became clear to us that our path had been chosen and we had nothing to offer the world. Our options narrowing down to petty crime or minimum wage. So, we stepped off the path, and went looking for the fortune that we knew was looking for us. Once off the path you do what you can to eat and to keep moving. You don't blow your ghost of a chance with nickel and dime. No possessions, no comforts. Need is the ultimate monkey. A pint of your blood can fetch you fifty bucks. A shot of cum, three grand. You keep your life simple and you can literally self sustain."

I think survival has become the ultimate monkey and crypto can help us all survive.

Think about it.

My $.02.

[Rassah]

I never argued that one follows the other, just that they are in fact so far correlated. My stance is that if the security of the network can not be incredibly tiny compared to the market cap*, because otherwise there is too much incentive to not buy up 51% of the hash rate and take over the coin.

This is still wrong. Anony uses "can not" to mean "should not, but might" because if it does, then bitcoin is vulnerable to attack. I, and all empirical evidence, suggest that security literally can not be tiny compared to the market cap. Market cap goes up > mining profitability goes up > miners chasing profits enter and security goes up. Market cap goes down > mining profitability goes down > miners avoiding losses leave and security goes down. This applies even if there is no more block rewards, as increased market cap = increase in bitcoin value = increase in transaction fees OR increase in economic activity and thus increase in number of transactions with fees. So as market cap goes up, governments, cartels, and everyone else will all be chasing profits, increasing security against each other.
And sorry if this is an oversimplification - yes, there are some feedback loops from miners that affect the price as well - but in general that's the way it is, with other thiings being mostly glitches, such as lack of hardware, or long delays after preorders.

[AnonyMint]