Is a Madmax outcome coming before 2020? Thus do we need anonymity?

[AnonyMint]

practicaldreamer, I coded in 1997 from a Nipa Hut eating only rice and beans (lost 10 - 15 kilos) arguably one of the world's first social network, coolpage.com, which had 1 million users (1% of the internet) and 335,000 confirmed websites (and millions of pages).

I had also been far up in the mountains in Guatemala and Mexico in the early 1990s, where the natives had dirt floors.

I attended inner city schools in New Orleans and Baton Rouge, where my sister and I were the only non-negro students and where they had never touched fine hair and so I had greasy hair from greasy hands stroking my hair.

I've been down to my last penny and slept in car eating only canned food on food stamps. Then accepted a job in 1995 for $80,000 a year and $million stock options the next month (which btw I forsaked to go live in squalor by my choice because I wanted to know the real world).

I've seen a lot man.

(my father was gone during my grade school, he became wealthy later as I entered high school, but I only availed of this for a short period of my life, then I was independent of any assistance)

And the dead weight are not the lower echelon, they are the ones who have been living it up on debt. The lower echelons like me had to fight for it and earn it. Thanks for appreciating that I worked hard and had foresight. In college I made a key observation-- computer programming requires no monetary capital. I observed that one person was more effective than 2 on the same project. I realized I had discovered an inverted scaling law.

At least you admitted that you (almost?) entirely refused to learn the math and the relevant logic. You'd rather paint some sob story to avoid dealing with the science of it. Which is precisely what (refuse to study+read+concentrate, sound bites, personalize issues, fluff, gullible for the propaganda) dead weight people do. And their day of reckoning is fast approaching, regardless of what I do or don't do.

However, it seems (?) you recognized that statism is what holds the lower echelons down? Or were you being facetious?

Technology will open many new opportunities for the lower echelons like I was, who want to strive for success. Because it removes the control of monetary capital, taxation, negative scaling laws, etc..

[1714143973]

1714143973

[1714143973]

1714143973

[1714143973]

1714143973

[1714143973]

1714143973

[1714143973]

1714143973

[1714143973]

1714143973

[CoinCube]

Lets look at the distinction between the chaos of aggression and the chaos of productivity.  The former is often pure destructive chaos while the latter is the controlled harvesting of entropy to achieve a higher order state.

This is the fundamental bedrock of life itself which has mastered the deadly dance of harvesting entropy.  Absorb too much entropy and the species succumbs so mutation tumors and death. Absorb too little and the species stagnates eventually succumbing to competition from other more entropic/evolved species. Life walks the edge of a razor maximizing the harvesting of entropy.

You haven't defined "harvesting" mathematically. And it appears to have no meaning.

Anonymity allows uncontrolled destructive chaos.

And who are you to judge that individual freedom and responsibility produces destructive outcomes?
I am an anarchist. I believe in the math of optimal fitness.

So my task is thus to show that the math of optimal fitness requires anarchy to be contained and limited.
I accept your challenge.

When I referred to the harvesting of entropy what I meant was that life requires entropy to exist, but critically such entropy must be limited and contained. Entropy/mutation must not be allowed to exceed the error threshold. Error threshold was developed from Quasispecies Theory by Eigen and Schuster to describe the dynamics of replicating nucleic acid under the influence of mutation and selection.

If replication was without entropy no mutants would arise and evolution would cease. On the other hand, evolution would also be impossible if the entropy/error rate of replication were too high (only a few mutation produce an improvement, but most will lead to deterioration). Error threshold allows us to quantify the resulting minimal replication accuracy (ie maximal mutation/entropy rate) that still maintains adaptation.

This can be shown analytically at its clearest in an extreme form of a fitness landscape which contains a single peak of fitness x > 1 with all other variations having a fitness of 1. With an infinite population there is a phase transition at a particular error rate p (the mutation rate at each loci in a genetic sequence). In Eigen and Schuster (1979), this critical error rate is determined analytically to be p = ln(x)/L (where L is the chromosome length). When this mutation/entropy rate is exceeded the proportion of the infinite population on the fitness peak drops to chance levels.

This can be thought of intuitively as a balance between exploitation and exploration in genetic search. In the limit of zero entropy/mutation successive generations of selection remove all variety from the population and the population converges to a single point. If the entropy/mutation rates are too excessive the evolutionary process degenerates into random search with no exploitation of the information acquired in preceding generations.

Thus the optimum entropy rate should maximize the search done through mutation subject to the constraint of not losing information already gained.
Any optimal entropy rate must lie between the two extremes, but its precise position will depend on several factors especially the structure of the fitness landscape.

It is also worth noting that at least with genetic algorithms natural selection tends to reduce the mutation/entropy rates on rugged landscapes (but not on smooth ones) so as to avoid the production of harmful mutations, even though this short-term benefit limits adaptation over the long term.

I see some ying and yang balance ahead. It will sort itself out. There are no absolutes in the universe.

I agree and would argue that this applies to anarchism as well

I would like to stop expending effort writing. So if there are not suitable challenges after this, I will try my best to bow out so I can save my time for some real work.

Fair enough. In the interest of winding down this discussion I will concede that while the argument above demonstrates that entropy must be controlled/limited/harvested to achieve optimal fitness this does not mean we do not need anonymity now or that anonymity will push us over the error threshold for civilization at large. It appears far more likely that we are well below the optimum entropy rate currently and that an anonymous cryptocurrency will take us closer to an optimal state.

As you said anonymity is inevitable regardless of what you do.
Like minded individuals are already working to similar ends http://zerocoin.org/media/pdf/ZerocoinOakland.pdf
Should you lack the time for a response to this post I will not take offence
    
References:
Eigen, M., & Schuster, P. (1979). The Hypercycle: A Principle of Natural Self-Organization. Springer-Verlag.
Ochoa G., Harvey I, Buxton, H. Optimal Mutation Rates and Selection Pressure in Genetic Algorithms. Proc. Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference 2000
Clune J, Misevic D, Ofria C, Lenski RE, Elena SF, Sanjuán R. Natural Selection Fails to Optimize Mutation Rates for Long-Term Adaptation on Rugged Fitness Landscapes. PLOS September 26, 2008


  

[AnonyMint]

Add the following linked post written by myself to my archives of explanations of the power vacuum, the end of stored capital, etc.:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4757&cpage=1#comment-394401

CoinCube, indeed the only known algorithm for global maximization (of an entirely unpredictable solution space) is a repeating cycle of random jumps followed or preceded by some gradient method, such as gradient descent or Newton's method. It is generally impossible to always find the global minima without the random jumps because the gradient method can get stuck in a higher valley (of the N dimensional solution space). Also in real life the solution space is dynamic and there are a plurality of simultaneous minima searches which are interacting with and modifying the solution space for others. Indeed there must be some order (i.e. not infinite entropy) otherwise there are no reference points from which to form any judgment of quality of position (c.f. my blog article The Universe). In my universal theory (which is partially elucidated in my blog article The Universe and spread out over numerous forum posts else where), a black hole is matter disordered (high entropy) than can be perceived by our judgments, i.e. I haphazardly posited more disordered than Planck's constant. I have not formed an understanding whether black holes must have infinite entropy. I need to study (the math of) them more. I expect the math to point out that only a lonely, unprovably existent God could have infinite entropy, but then he would be all alone with no recognizable patterns to join such an omniscient God.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4757&cpage=1#comment-393293

I posit that Eric is smart enough to recognize his mistake. Eric, you are conflating the mathematical duality of the inductive construction of the universe with the coinductive construction of infinity.

> First, give up one of omnibenevolence, omnipotence, or omniscience.
> Then we could talk contingent existence.

Indeed it would be impossible to construct an INSTANCE that is simultaneously all good, all powerful, and all knowing, because nothing imperfect could be constructed. Perfection would require infinite degrees-of-freedom, thus a dynamic, competitive world could not exist– the Second Law of Thermodynamics could not exist.

In type theory, top is the inductive bound and bottom is the coinductive bound. Top is the intersection of all types and bottom is the union of all types. Thus bottom can never be constructed as an instance, yet it exists as type bound.

Shift your frame-of-reference into the type of types domain of the universe to find the existence you claim is impossible.

Note that the operations (e.g. methods of a class) of an inductive type are a coinductive type and dually vice versa, e.g. the top class type contains the union of all methods of all types in the universe, thus can not be constructed. And dually, the bottom class type contains the intersection of all methods of all types, thus can be constructed.

You’re uttering nonsense. The relationship between mathematical theory and observed reality is not even nearly that simple.

I understood your tripartite impossibility claim to be that a good God would not be powerless to make good all that is in the universe.

The claim is illogical in several orthogonal ways.

1. Good does not exist without evil. Perception requires contrast.
2. Good is evil, and vice versa, from different perspectives.
3. Some cases of global or greater good require local or lesser evil.

Essentially by implication you claimed that infinity (infinite degrees-of-freedom to attain good at all possible perspectives) must be observable, else it is impossible. Or by implication you claimed that we can prove the universe is finite, thus the necessary degrees-of-freedom would be observed and achieved by such a God.

Some theories of the universe posit that infinity exists as an unreachable bound in some domain, e.g. entropy, space, time, or precision. True or not, we can not prove that infinity does not exist as unreachable bound. Your claim of impossibility is too strong. Such a God can not provably exist, because we can’t observe for infinite time, precision, etc..

A possible interpretation of your linked essay on math, is that an infinite universe can not be completely described by any finite set of theories or axioms.

Infinity can not constructed inductively from a starting point, because infinity (final unreachable bound) can not be observed.

Whether it exists or not, infinity or the finite bound is decomposed co-inductively as observations directed towards its final unreachable or finite bound that we can not prove is final.

How sad a finite universe would be, where the scientific method could be shelved and knowledge would cease to expand at some finite bound. The scientific method requires that we never trust a bound (e.g. Planck’s constant precision) as final and continue searching and testing forever.

> I read JustSaying’s comment and maybe I don’t know enough math to appreciate what he is saying

Induction is the construction of expressible structure, e.g. defining the natural numbers with an iterative function. Co-induction is the decomposition into parts from a structure that is unknown a priori and not until all parts have been enumerated, e.g. reading a stream:

http://tunes.org/wiki/algebra_20and_20coalgebra.html

There is a tradeoff between expedience and getting stuck in local valleys (which can in the power vacuum of democracy morph the solution space towards zero entropy if there are no independent movements) and directionless randomization that never converges on any recognizable qualities (i.e. order).

Anonymity is not infinite randomization. It in theory increases the degrees-of-freedom (options) for the individual human actors in the economy, but it doesn't eliminate (and rather stimulates since it discourages the collective backstop) the economic incentives the humans have to optimize their individual outcomes. Optimization of individual economic outcomes (as contrasted with group-wise optimization) is a form of local gradient method.

So what is the informational value of the collective (aka socialism) which appears to me to be chains on our individual ankles? What do we lose by discarding it so that individuals can optimize more freely?

The collective had high utility when we needed to apply large quantities of manual labor in the industrial revolution. It enabled us to find collective balances between slavery and unionized labor, so as to prevent the capitalists from the unoptimal outcome of squeezing blood from a turnip, which could possibly have stifled the individual creative development which provided for our current knowledge age. In other words, it was the necessity of stored capital because of the negative scaling law of physical economic processes, which required lower degrees-of-freedom (i.e. lower entropy). Technology has advanced and we can now eliminate much of this requirement for stored capital with the positive scaling law of for example computer programming (and other hitech that can be done more efficiently individually without capital requirements). In order words, the granularity of economic optimization has moved to the individual from the corporation. Study the Theory of the Firm[1] to see why the utility of the corporation is dying too.

But now the economic solution space has changed , c.f. my upthread (or in my archives) points about positive scaling law and the Mythical Man Month. Stored capital and manual labor are dying. We are now moving to a new freedom of the individual where capital is what is stored in one's brain, and money will be a more ephemeral unit-of-exchange.

Thus to move forward we must destroy the old order which has lost its utility and is standing in the way of progress.

This realization is not random, rather a reasoned judgement, so there is no infinite randomization involved here. Yet it is also derived from the high entropy that enables me to be unique, think of it, and freedom-of-speech to write it. Note the current dying top-down socialism is starting to outlaw freedom-of-speech. We will soon have the technology to tap directly into the brain's thoughts, so then a powerful totalitarian collective could outlaw freedom-of-thought!

[1] http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4867&cpage=1#comment-397546

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3753&cpage=1#comment-328383

@Tim F., neither Metcalf nor Reed’s Law correctly models the human networking effects, because there isn’t only one category that is to be grouped pairwise (Metcalf) or N-tuples (Reed’s Law). However, categories (topics that cause people to interact) are numerous and often the participants’ set is temporal yet the interaction record is archived and persistently spawning new interaction. People can be in more than one grouping simultaneously, and even temporarily but persistently because they can put it down and forget about it, yet pick it up later at will. Many people remark that Google is their external memory. The Dunbar cognitive limit (~150) on human social groupings applies where we interact with those in the group personally. Technological groupings are not necessarily so limited, because for example with DCVS, it is possible for the effort of some group, to be taken up and extended by other people, without participants even being aware of each other. Although a particular case of interaction may reach diminishing marginal utility, new cases of groupings are spawned. This is life in action, it requires new births and deaths.

Bottom line is that paradigms which are decentralized are able to grow at exponential rates, because plurality of actors are not as retarded by top-down management bandwidth. The linear market-share growth of Google requires an exponential growth of nominal units, and this is possible because Google is not trying to doing everything top-down, but instead allowing network effects.

The analysis of any particular company’s or person’s strategy is not so interesting to me, because by definition of the Theory of the Firm, every company exists because there is some friction in the free market which enables the firm to arbitrage and take a rent on the active capital doing the work (e.g. $345 billion to Apple shareholders, only $3 billion developers market). In other words, I view management as necessary because of friction. One set of people sees the friction and attacks it with management and makes money doing so successfully. Another smaller set of people, sets off to create technology that eliminates the friction (i.e. democratization via technology, e.g. the personal computer). Those who battled the friction with brute-force eventually reach the natural limit of growth that coexists with the friction, and then those who created the technology to eliminate the friction take over to eliminate this limit. This is the cycle of life. The former is order directed, the latter is disorder directed. The thermodynamic (entropic) universe is on an overall perpetual trend towards eliminating friction, i.e. order. Along the way there, we build some temporal orders as stop-gap measures. Often we need these orders to get the work down to eliminate the friction that caused the order.

Google’s strategy is to increase as fast as possible, the number of people using the web, because their revenues are correlated. They are employing network effects to commoditize the web access devices, and marginalize the telcoms and others who might try to retard the exponential growth rate of the WAN participation. For me it is not a question of who is good or evil, because every person and every corporation is both. Every actor in the markets is playing their role.

Regardless if one asserts that Apple doesn’t want to lower its “quality” to serve some markets, the mathematical model of lower degrees-of-freedom applies. The degrees-of-freedom on who can ship a legal iPhone clone or fork, is zero. Amazon will be serving Android to new markets that it wasn’t already reaching. This is a new grouping of users, developers, and it will to some extent be an orthogonal ecosystem, yet still adding value back to Google’s main goal. This is an example of the grouping power stated in Reed’s law, even there will be groups within the Amazon fork group. The potential groupings are limitless, Amazon could even add social networking features for developers to interact with users, etc, etc, etc, let your creative imagination run wild and if Amazon doesn’t provide a feature users want, other groupings can potentially spawn in the Android ecosystem. Meanwhile back at the walled garden, iCloud will have a more control of the “right way(s)” to interopt and group, and no alternatives are even potentially possible.

Degrees-of-freedom is the number of points in the network that are free to interconnect (i.e. provide fitness), e.g. think of the links in a bicycle chain for bending fitness, and in general these can be communication pathways, open source code, etc. These utility of these potential groupings due to increased degrees-of-freedom, are not always possible due to various frictions that I mentioned in one of my earlier comments, e.g. resources, legal (patents), political, vested interests, etc.. The potential exponential permutations from degrees-of-freedom exist and although the utility can be constrained by a lack of degrees-of-freedom else where, this model still needs to be respected, because a paradigm shift is where a blocking order is removed and the blocked degrees-of-freedom are unleashed in a period of rapid change. Note that blocking order is some friction, and friction is the transactional cost in the Theory of the Firm. Corporations only exist because of friction. With an ideal world of no friction, every human being would be his own company. The world is headed that direction, even though we have peaking fascism and debt at the moment. To an increasing extent passive capital (shareholders, stored money, usury finance) is peaking and will decline, with active capital (knowledge) taking a greater proportion of the value created. This is why I think Apple’s $345 billion valuation with only a $3 billion app market is an unsustainable balloon.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3689&cpage=1#comment-321944

The fundamental problem is that in a material world, the transactional cost in The Theory of the Firm (thanks Winter), enables the corporate capital to accumulate faster than for those who produce the knowledge. However, I think we are entering a radical paradigm shift, where knowledge (the mind) becomes much more valuable than material production. Because industry can be automated (see the $1200 3D printer) but the knowledge isn’t static and can’t be automated.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2839

To answer these questions we need to go back to the basic Coasian theory of the firm, in which corporate scale is driven by the difference in communications and transaction costs between the interior of the firm and the exterior; the higher that difference, the more internal diseconomy of scale you can tolerate and still win. Now consider a business environment in which that difference is steadily dropping (because faster, cheaper communication is lowering overall transaction costs). The optimal competitive size of firms drops with it.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4946&cpage=1#comment-401597

   I don’t want to earn less

What I really want to maximize is my earnings in knowledge. Money is just one fungible way of representing that, but it is more important for me to have a repository of knowledge that I am maintaining and it is sending me food and other material needs every day. The stored wealth should be in the knowledge, not in money that sits there and is stupid extracting rents and (not only) retarding civilization (but also enabling gaming production by statism leading to horrific societal busts via delaying annealing to technological acceleration).

   The point is that all the programmers get the wealth

The point is cut out the parasites by eliminating the impedance mismatch that provides the Theory of the Firm (thanks again Winter for turning me on to that some years back). So all of us earn more, and civilization improves.

As for those designers who are afraid of losing revenue without total control freak gardens, you are actually giving (a portion of) your work to the stockholders instead and being controlled (or retarded) by a paradigm of collective retardation.

   The danger is that there may well be no way to monetize the mindspace. People’s expectations are that they can get it all for free, and those who try to monetize what used to be free tend to face severe backlash.

Agreed. The peaking statism is perhaps funding much of this. Much of this excess stupid monetary capital (including all insurance and retirement plans that invested in bonds) should be wiped out soon, since it is just an illusion of debt being propped up on the backs of the authors in the hitech space in the developed countries and the labor in the developing countries. Then the expectation of free could be replaced with a reality of not many able to fund free software (unless it is paid for in some ancillary way).

[AnonyMint]

CoinCube, I suggest we should focus on the impedance mismatch between a level of entropy that can not anneal optimally because there is a top-down barrier (aka friction) per Coase's theorem or the Theory of the Firm. Entropy appears (top-down) to be random but it is constituted from a diversity of local orders. The relevant mechanism appears to be if the localized orders (gradients) are thwarted due to some barrier, thus the emergent (bottom-up to apparent top-down) randomness doesn't converge on optimal fitness, e.g. cooling ice too quickly causes cracks. Note my blog about The Universe wherein I explained+derived mathematically that gravity can be both viewed as a macro (top-down) phenomenon of large mass, or a bottom-up emergent phenomena of entropic force. Then this enlightened me to define what (I think) mass really is a symbiosis of its bottom-up constitution and top-down emergent effects.

So we are really looking for is congruence or harmony (aka resonance and I have written about this w.r.t. to potential energy and even explored Tesla's work) but if we can't eliminate all necessary barriers then increased degrees-of-freedom in one sub-area might be suboptimal, ineffective, or perhaps counter-productive.

The trend of the universe (per the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which even Einstein admitted is fundamental), is local orders are built on the way towards deconstructing them into more granular (higher entropy) local orders (each usually modeled as closed, isolated thermodynamic systems). At all times there must be some local orders, else there is no reference point and nothing exists (i.e. the black hole). The trend is towards maximum entropy, i.e. more granular local orders. Along the way, there has to be congruence with the current granularity of orders, else the greater degrees-of-freedom will appear top-down to be noise.

Why do I say local orders? To avoid reiterating all the upthread discussion and explanations, just note the cliche if a tree fell in a forest and nobody saw or heard it before it decomposed, did it fall? In short, everything is relative. Refer to my blog article The Universe.


Edit:

So what is the informational value of the collective (aka socialism) which appears to me to be chains on our individual ankles? What do we lose by discarding it so that individuals can optimize more freely?

The collective had high utility when we needed to apply large quantities of manual labor in the industrial revolution. It enabled us to find collective balances between slavery and unionized labor, so as to prevent the capitalists from the unoptimal outcome of squeezing blood from a turnip, which could possibly have stifled the individual creative development which provided for our current knowledge age. In other words, it was the necessity of stored capital because of the negative scaling law of physical economic processes, which required lower degrees-of-freedom (i.e. lower entropy). Technology has advanced and we can now eliminate much of this requirement for stored capital with the positive scaling law of for example computer programming (and other hitech that can be done more efficiently individually without capital requirements). In order words, the granularity of economic optimization has moved to the individual from the corporation. Study the Theory of the Firm[1] to see why the utility of the corporation is dying too.

But now the economic solution space has changed , c.f. my upthread (or in my archives) points about positive scaling law and the Mythical Man Month. Stored capital and manual labor are dying. We are now moving to a new freedom of the individual where capital is what is stored in one's brain, and money will be a more ephemeral unit-of-exchange.

Thus to move forward we must destroy the old order which has lost its utility and is standing in the way of progress.

My theory is socialism was required during the stored capital intensive industrial age, because capital was naturally concentrating among the wealthy tycoons, environment was trashed, and society needed a equitable way to redistribute capital to the laborers (masses) via taxation, government spending, and regulation.

Socialism was the best paradigm we had at the time, even though it is highly flawed because the same tycoons can capture the government (fill the aforementioned power vacuum).

But now! We have a new decentralized technology proof-of-work for a crypto-currencies and decentralized debasement going to miners to redistribute capital to thwart dysfunctional capital concentration to tycoons who can't do anything smart (nor high tech innovation) except slavery, c.f. my writings on knowledge, why finance+stored capital doesn't produce knowledge, and the concept of positive scaling law of open source networked knowledge development and the Mythical Man Month.

The remaining problem I see is that Bitcoin isn't immune to the socialism+fascism, because it is flawed:

• lacks strong, ubiquitous anonymity (coin mixers, laundries, trading to/from altcoin, and Tor are all subject to timing analysis by the NSA)
• funding for mining is flawed and can be cartelized because debasement declines instead of making transaction fees ZERO
• is dominated by ASICs so losing decentralization
• is dominated by large pools so losing decentralization

I think I may know the solution to those flaws. There may be other flaws as well, and other people working on these or other ideas.

THE END. the last reply is yours to make


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=330687.msg4909724#msg4909724

Argentina isn't too far behind Venezuela's trajectory. We will see all of commodity exporter South America turn down hard once China's bubble economy implodes.

The contagion of the global dominoes are starting to fall just as I (and Armstrong) had predicted. The USA will be the last standing with the dollar moving to 118 before Sept 2015 (when the USA will turn down after being strangled by a strong dollar and Obama) as capital has turned and is starting to exit emerging markets. The emerging market tail does not wag the dog. Euro will crater sometime between now and Sept 2015, as the IMF is pushing for waves of "financial repression" (i.e. confiscation) starting with a 10% confiscation of all EU bank accounts. HSBC is already implementing capital controls.

All right great, just making sure you weren't actually advocating for this to happen again  I've met a fair share of people who see these systems and what they've accomplished and say, "but this time it'll be better!"  I once heard a guy say, "Stalin's death count isn't even that big, and besides all those people who died were rebels anyway."  That one really hit me in the nads.

I am not advocating, but I fear that the same could soon happen again in Europe - far-right parties gaining popularity, even Anders Breivik-supporting party got a lot of votes in the Norway recently!
Adolf Hitler came into the power with some support from the population, and his success was largely predetermined by Great Depression and big unemployment.

P.S. If I am right about technological unemployment problem I described in another topic AND no measures will be taken to mitigate this problem - rise of new totalitarian ideology is very probable/inevitable.

Solution:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=365141.msg4906694#msg4906694

[CoinCube]

So what is the informational value of the collective (aka socialism) which appears to me to be chains on our individual ankles? What do we lose by discarding it so that individuals can optimize more freely?

I posit that your analysis undervalues the utility of socialism.

I agree that socialism currently has negative utility. As you stated the power vacuum is pushing us towards every greater socialism and setting us up for collapse. It is a system out of balance. However, some degree of socialism is needed to find optimal fitness.

Socialism and anarchism are in constant opposition. Anarchism is needed to combat the evils/suboptimal outcomes of unrestrained socialism as you have convincingly demonstrated. However, socialism is likewise needed to combat the evils/suboptimal outcomes of unrestrained anarchism.

The informational value of socialism is that it smooth’s the fitness curve. Anarchy if left unchecked results in an ever steeper curve. This has been shown to reduce the rate of evolution/change as it forces convergence onto the nearest local valley or local optima.

http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000187

Thus unrestrained anarchism increases short term fitness at the cost of long term optimization/adaptation. To borrow from your corporation analogy the proper role of socialism is to help ensure trailblazers survive long enough to eliminate the economic friction. In a landscape with an extremely steep fitness curve those individuals may not survive or succeed (crossing those barriers involves significant cost). We can get stuck in a higher valley (of the N dimensional solution space).    

In its most extreme form anarchism can drive the entropy of society past the Error Threshold at which point information is destroyed rather than created.  A madmax outcome is indeed possible. It would arise from the death throes of excessive socialism. Like a spring pushed too far in one direction a system trying to find equilibrium is likely to overshoot in the opposite direction when the unstable order dissolves. In the industrial era the backlash lead to communism. The collapse of socialism may lead us to pure anarchy = madmax.

So we are really looking for is congruence or harmony (aka resonance and I have written about this w.r.t. to potential energy and even explored Tesla's work) but if we can't eliminate all necessary barriers then increased degrees-of-freedom in one sub-area might be suboptimal, ineffective, or perhaps counter-productive.

This is the key point. Unrestrained anarchism does not eliminate all necessary barriers. Instead it forces conformity to the nearest local optima effectively raising barriers to distant more global optima. I am an anarchist currently because the solutions of anarchy including anonymous cryptocurrency are what is needed to restore balance in our era. Had I been around at the dawn of the industrial revolution I would have been a socialist.

[AnonyMint]

I reply one more time, because I want to share this link about what Hitler did that was initially perceived as a great accomplishment for the people.

Also I didn't expect CoinCube would miss my point that the needs for socialism have diminished. We needed socialism because we lived in physical challenges in agricultural and industrial ages. But this is all going to change so radically now. I don't think you all are comprehending how thoroughly this Knowledge Age will alter society.

CoinCube, I appreciate your efforts and the points you raised. Indeed I agree with you about the abstract math and model of adaptation, but I think you are misapplying it w.r.t. socialism and incorrect about the utility of socialism in the knowledge age. I think humans were stuck with this form of society (after tribalism) during the physical ages, but now we move to virtual reality age (where the most value will be produced).

CoinCube, we both agree that failure to converge will occur if a dynamic system is entirely undamped aka unconstrained, because the actions of the individual actors will not find any (or sufficient) mutual information aka coherence.

However, I did not propose 100% anarchism. I have stated numerous times that even with a decentralized, anonymous currency the government can continue to tax businesses that have a physical presence, which provides for a transition period from now to 2032. Beyond 2032, there will still be frictional barriers in the Knowledge Age that give rise to corporations, yet I believe these will be leaner and smaller because knowledge can spread fast to competitors with positive scaling laws without a need for slow (non-specialized, dimwitted, entrenched, vested interests) stored capital as in the industrial age, thus self-limiting not leading to monopolies, cartels, and fascism. Socialism does not smooth fitness rather defeats fitness (e.g. retards technological adaptation, c.f. the repeating 78 year technological unemployment cycle and Oxford's prediction of 47% job displacement coming) because the Coasian barriers increase over time without limit (until society is destroyed, tax exceeds the Laffer limit) due the power vacuum.

As far as I can see, large scale socialism (not Dunbar congruent tribalism or family clans) was necessary only because we had no other way to provide physical security for industry and rebalance capital allocation away from tycoons who would otherwise concentrate all capital in the industrial age (because rich spend fraction of their income on consumption whereas middle class consume a significant chunk of their income, and the rich can capture the government). We now have a new technology to do this, thus I posit socialism is a relic that will no longer be needed once society adjusts to the knowledge age.

Agriculture did not flourish until both roads and physical security were developed. Being naturally bound together in collectives to effect these necessary requirements. The Knowledge Age changes the requirements. Roads and physical security become irrelevant when everything it is by wire virtual reality. A ha! The epiphany should hit you now.

Blabberlicious, my point was Eric should respect my emotions as not irrational because they play a role in evolutionary fitness and he is an inconsistent hyprocrite for (standing on a high horse of 100% rationality and) wanting anarchism (aka individualism) and simultaneously calling for a strong US military (government) and (tax) funding of weapons to change the cultures he doesn't like top-down. I have no anarchist criticism of "do good" Westerners after the $150 trillion is written down and they are thus funding that from their own individual sweat, not other people's money which was stolen with taxes & debt gone wild. Debt = future taxation, as all you westerners will soon see. You do realize you all will be paying the $150 trillion don't you?

That is perhaps unless you buy+mine the anonymous coin anonymously.

Disclaimer: I am not a professional tax and investment adviser. Please consult yours. Do not hold me responsible for your actions, as I am not providing advice. Rather I am merely sharing my opinions.

The 1988 Economist magazine article predicted the unveiling of the one-world global currency in 2018. Looks like the elite are right on track with their plan.

http://www.oldthinkernews.com/2007/05/euus-single-market-next-stage-in-bilderbergtrilateral-plan-for-world-government/
https://www.google.com/search?q=phoenix+2018




Enslaving the Next Generation

I’m 31, and like most graduates of graduate schools, I have student loans.

1) What will happen to our generation who seem to be getting more and more stuck in student loan debt, which is backed by the federal government?  Will the government forgive it?  Or will we just be a generation in bondage, as American higher education is the most expensive it has ever been in history?

2) Furthermore – did the Roman Empire do anything similar to the younger generation to enslave them in debt?

As far as debt – this has NEVER been done to a generation to my knowledge. It is part of the New Deal – Marxist-Socialistic agenda that sounded good, but in the end, it is proving to be a total disaster.

One example with student debt that has proven devastating comes from Britain. The government needed cash so they sold all student loans for 25%. The government got cash and totally screwed the students. Now private companies are out trying to collect 100% of what is owed. The government never gave the students the ability to pay off their loans at 25% of their face value. Students are being hunted down even when they live in foreign lands. Wherever they are,  they are being hunted down by debtor collectors.

The entire system of education is a disaster. It is bloated with nonsense and has proven to be a failure with not just 60% unable to find jobs in what they paid for, but the debts they have amassed are burdensome and is reducing their standard of living going forward.

[CoinCube]

I posit that socialism is both inevitable and necessary.

I posit socialism is a relic that will no longer be needed

We have both thesis and antithesis. Lets see if synthesis can be achieved.

I agree with your economic analysis above.
We also agree that failure to converge to an optima will occur if a dynamic system is entirely unconstrained.

You state that socialism cannot provide this constraint because of the power vacuum. You likewise argue that for similar reasons socialism cannot be used to smooth the fitness curve.

However, I contend that you have already proposed a working solution to the power vacuum (anonymous cryptocurrency). The iron law of political economics aka power vacuum breaks down once governments lose the ability to debase the currency.

In a post fiat Knowledge Era government would be forced to live on a fixed income (taxation of the physical economy). Government can try to increase taxes on the physical economy but this would be self limiting once the ability to debase the currency is lost.  Socialism would thus be limited in size to a portion of the physical economy. With the power vacuum solved socialism is freed to play its proper role of required constraint on the dynamic system and smoothing of the fitness curve.

Nothing in your analysis presented so far demonstrates that the physical economy must shrink in absolute size. You have only shown that it must progressively shrink in relative size. It is entirely possible that both the physical economy and the resources consumed by socialism will continuously grow while simultaneously fading into insignificance.

If you argue for the complete death of socialism then some other model/social contract will be needed to provide our required constraint. Any system developed is likely to look a lot like socialism.

As this is your fundamental insight we are exploring it is only polite not to claim the last word. I will now bow out and leave it to you.

[AnonyMint]

CoinCube, excellent summary. We are now entirely in agreement.

However, note it appears that the socialism will attempt to overshoot before it stabilizes in diminishing role. I don't know if anonymity will rise sufficiently fast enough to provide extensive relief from (and thus limit) this overshoot.

I recently had the epipheny upthread (see quote below) that the coming world government and world currency are a way to increase the economy-of-scale of the diminishing socialism component, so it can survive and be more efficient. This insight is similar to the logic I applied in 2010 to predict the European Union would not disintegrate. Note the developing world is still predominately physical (not knowledge) economies.

If you agree, hopefully you can help teach and spread these concepts, perhaps also further developing theories on the ramifications.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=365141.msg4701370#msg4701370

Remember my thesis (see above linked related thread) is the Industrial Age is dying. Yes they will tax the physical capital age into the dust bin of history right on time with its destruction and replacement by the coming Knowledge Age.

My hope (and I am nearly sure) they won't be able to tax the Knowledge Age. This will eventually lead perhaps to a chip embedded into everyone's body to break the anonymity. I realize what I proposing could potentially forestall the 666 but actually drive the requirement to put the RFID tracking in the body where it can even monitor the brain signals.

Thus I am technologically threatening the power vacuum at its source of funding, which I think it the only way it can be defeated. This is a radical paradigm shift.

Naturally people will avoid anonymity because it is a hassle and it runs counter to their ideals of a society. But as those who don't go anonymous are taxed to death (literally!), then we will have remaining those who adopted anonymity. Hopefully eventually the crisis bottoms and we can come back to saner society where the anonymity is accepted and built-in to every thing so it is no burden.

[CoinCube]

If you agree, hopefully you can help teach and spread these concepts, perhaps also further developing theories on the ramifications.

I believe the best next step is to condense your ideas into a single paper and publish them in the peer reviewed economics literature. If you are interested I am willing to help write this up and publish it

I have gone through this process in the medical literature a few times. However, I would not be able to do this until late April as I have some time sensitive projects to complete before I could give this the attention it deserves.

It is my opinion that this economic theory is not anarchism. This is something better... this is something new.

Edit: Actually publishing this would be much easier with a Ph.D economist (perhaps as primary author) to bring it into harmony with their existing literature.

[AnonyMint]

I will also be very busy in the interim.

http://blog.mpettis.com/2014/01/will-the-reforms-speed-growth-in-china/#comment-13827

Since we established last year on this blog, that I am probably the only (min-)anarchist regularly commenting here, I am passing along a fabulous theoretic epiphany that CoinCube and I synthesized mathematically, which posits that socialism was entirely necessary for the physical economy and thus is moving to higher economies-of-scale as the economy transitions to "knowledge+virtual".

I think this places the rebalancing of China and my prior comments within a greater context. Hope some find this interesting if they take the time to delve into the linked discussion.

Armstrong continues to repeat the same illogical speculation about there not being a global conspiracy. He incorrectly concludes that just because there is failure of banks and socialism and the bailout of lower echelons of elite, that this requires no one can be in (partial) control. The top-most elite (Rothschilds, Rockefeller, Morgan family, Soros, Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, etc) could be purposely contributing to the failure of the socialism for their own gains. He again fails to factor in that the elite-most globalists could understand very well the concept of creative destruction and appear to be destroying the nation-states in order to usher a world governance and currency system. They appear to have explicitly enabled and encouraged these massive failures among banks by for example arranging the repeal of Glass-Steagal, aiding and abetting Goldman's corruption of Greece, they are pulling the geo-political strings on the Middle East revolutions, military invasions, etc for the destruction of the cheap oil in order to push control towards the USA. Armstrong needs to delve into the epipheny we made on why socialism will move to higher economies-of-scale and anonymity will become the new private sector. He is missing the big picture synthesis.


http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/02/04/corruption-in-government-is-massive-worldwide/

There is no actual “control” over the economy. For if that were really the case, we would not see this continual need for bailouts. Many want to constantly paint this as a conspiracy, but it is only a conspiracy with a short-term view that never changes – how much can we make right now. This is why the business cycle builds in intensity until the whole thing explodes in 2032. What kind of government we end up with after that will either be some form of totalitarianism or a real democracy. That requires education of the masses to at least identify the issue. Government will point their finger at the “rich” and others will target the “bankers” and that will lead to the “Jews” and you can see precisely how things like Hitler become possible.

[Rassah]

Still following this (though having to skim AnonyMint's posts, since they are still way too big with way more words than needed to get the point accross).

I'm wondering, what ever happened to AnonyMint's cryptocurrency he was working on? It was supposed to be ASIC resistant and be democratically mined on people's computers, but he did not want to share how it would work because he didn't want anyone stealing his idea or something. Well, Ethereum just came out with a few ideas and are looking for more. Maybe AnonyMint can help them out?

[practicaldreamer]

If you agree, hopefully you can help teach and spread these concepts, perhaps also further developing theories on the ramifications.

I believe the best next step is to condense your ideas into a single paper and publish them in the peer reviewed economics literature. If you are interested I am willing to help write this up and publish it with you as primary author and myself as second.

I have gone through this process in the medical literature a few times. However, I would not be able to do this until late April as I have some time sensitive projects to complete before I could give this the attention it deserves.

It is my opinion that this economic theory is not anarchism. This is something better... this is something new.

Wouldn't this sort of "love in" be better suited to private message ? I mean - why share it with us all ?

You aren't the same person after all are you ? I hope you don't think I'm Rudolph Hess for suggesting it  

And I've got to be honest - when I read this :-
 

If you agree, hopefully you can help teach and spread these concepts, perhaps also further developing theories on the ramifications.

   -it sent a chill down my spine - it reminded me of Marlon Brando's Kurtz issuing instruction to Martin Sheen in Apocolypse Now.

    

[CoinCube]

   -it sent a chill down my spine - it reminded me of Marlon Brando's Kurtz issuing instruction to Martin Sheen in Apocolypse Now.
    

Ha ha I like you practicaldreamer. I think your heart is in the right place and your funny.

If you really believe I am a figment of Anonymint's imagination I am happy to place a small wager on that. Say one bitcoin perhaps?

I would point out that our end goal's might be more similar then you think. Both of us want society to provide a safety net to the needy and less fortunate (see my Defense of Socialism)

The difference between us is that I believe the status quo is taking us to a very bad outcome and you apparently think all is well in the world.

The simple inherit folly, but the prudent are crowned with knowledge. - Proverbs 14:18

[AnonyMint]

CoinCube, I think families should do that safety net, otherwise there isn't much incentive to value the elderly, youth, and family unit, as we see now with the boomers and socialism throwing the youth under the bus. Beyond that, private individuals can provide charity. I do it regularly. Community spirit seems to be least where socialism is greatest, because who needs the community when you can get your backstop impersonally from the faceless monolith. Having to be humble and beg personally (as I have done at times in my life) eliminates most of the abuse and provides a strong incentive to be self-reliant.

In any case, I thought I would end this thread on a high note, as it seems while browsing facebook I found the secret of the universe (if you can't see the following image, you may need to be logged in on facebook first):



Did someone say I was working on an altcoin?



Maybe I've been doing too much of this:

[CoinCube]

All great leaders must have an audience. How else are they supposed to feel important?

We cannot all be leaders

Fair enough. Surprisingly I find myself converted.
Lead on AnonyMint I will follow you into the new world order  

Some of us must content ourselves with being early adopters and with rounding out the rough edges in the initial insight.

Personally I will be much better off if AnonyMint's theories are totally wrong. I do well under our current system. Unfortunately, I think he is right so it is only prudent to plan for the future

[AnonyMint]

So now I swing the sledgehammer

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=455141.0

[AnonyMint]

All great leaders must have an audience. How else are they supposed to feel important?

We cannot all be leaders

Disagree. Maximizing entropy means we are all leaders in our local frame-of-reference. What you imply is we can't all be top-down leaders of others. Agreed and as we eliminate the requirements for such top-down organization, we will enable more people to be their own leader. Prosperity!

Armstrong provides his evidence for speculating that there is no global conspiracy.

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/02/08/europe-is-a-basket-case-just-turnout-the-lights-now-save-energy/

One of the primary reasons I disagree with conspiracies to rule the world as if someone was really in control, has been the fact that I have been Behind the Curtain since the 1980s. There is no all-powerful group who knows what the heck they are doing. Everything is purely ad hoc and it is far worse than anyone can even guess.

Before I respond, I want to collect below the links to all the posts I have made refuting Armstrong's position on this matter. Let's reread my prior explanations first as follows. I suggest you right-click each of these links and choose from the pop-up menu "Open link in new tab" on your browser.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=365141.msg4298688#msg4298688
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=365141.msg4318137#msg4318137
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=365141.msg4320656#msg4320656
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=365141.msg4336719#msg4336719
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=365141.msg4791573#msg4791573
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=365141.msg4810251#msg4810251
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=365141.msg4943871#msg4943871

First of all, let me be clear that I hope there is no global conspiracy because I would rather be competing against idiots in ad hoc chance than against an very powerful astute elite. Secondly, I have stated that it doesn't affect my plans much either way.

Logic 101 says that if the very astute elite are very secretive and careful to pull strings in ways that the lower echelons of the bankers remain compartmentalized, then Armstrong would not have been able to see their actions while he was inside the curtain of the lower echelons. By lower echelons, I mean that the political, banking, and nation-state institutions are just DISPOSABLE pawns in the strategy of the hypothetical global elite.

Never did I write this global elite has to be in complete control. I hope Armstrong has read Tragedy and Hope by Carroll Quigley.

Rather the global elite attempt to capitalize on opportunities that arise from the order amongst the chaos of the universe. They also know the world runs in cycles. They would not destroy Armstrong (and probably pulled the strings to get him out of prison), because they desire to have as much information as possible and his work is important. I also ponder if my work is important enough that any such elite  might believe it is important to not destroy me.

I hope you can appreciate why I would never want to be provably the KEY developer of a such an anonymous coin. One doesn't need to break any law to be a target for assasination. The USA and Europe are not far behind in terms of having laws and executive orders to assassinate citizens without a trial if they are categorized as a "terrorist". I could see myself publicly contributing in a minor refinement bounty work role on such an altcoin, for as long as I am not the creator.

They understood a long time ago (see my link to the 1988 Economist article predicting a world currency by 2020), where the cycles were heading, to design the Euro to fail, to bring about the global crisis in order to require a solution of a single world currency SDR that the regional currencies will float against. Btw, the Asian Union is scheduled for full implementation by Dec 31, 2015. The 10 Kings (reqions) in the Bible is coming true. This is not complete control. They just understand how the power vacuum of democracy must move to higher economies-of-scale i.e. world governance and currency, while the chaos (entropy) will increase with greater freedom at the individual level i.e. end of nation-states, freedom to travel any where, internet empowering self-publishing and enterprise, etc as discussed in the last couple of pages upthread and the linked thread at the above quote of myself.

I had conversations with the people Behind the Curtain and the German Central Bank use to provide us with details on the upcoming Euro because they could see it would fail.

I desperately tried to explain that you could not create a single currency to rival the dollar if major capital could not “park” in bonds of one major unified state. The planners assumed that leaving the debts spread-out among all states would work since they would be denominated in the new currency.

The elite were very happy that you explained how it would fail, as this fit perfectly with their plans. And so they let made sure foolish lower level planners were there to disagree with you. Welcome to the term compartmentalization.

Armstrong doesn't see this because he is not invited to Bilderberg, CFR, Trilateral Commission, etc meetings. In these meetings, the globalists discuss these strategies. In fact, it has been documented that only the very upper echelon at these meetings get together to discuss the most secretive and sensitive components of the global strategy for domination.

These institutions to which Armstrong has been inside are just THROW AWAY pawns in the global strategy. Armstrong is not a member of the global elite and has no inside contact with them.

Armstrong is aware of some of the actions of a few of the elite such as trades of Warren Buffet or Soros, but he is not privy to the strategy meetings when such elite meet in private. Refer for example to a photo of Buffet meeting with a Rothschild and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Apparently the Terminator has become very trusted, but I don't know to what level he is inside.

Can Armstrong with a straight face tell me that Warren Buffet is an idiot as he claims the NY Club bankers are? Buffet invests based on a mathematical calculation of value and he trusts the power vacuum to keep society moving towards greater top-down organization and not disintegrating into bottom-up chaos.

The German high court did refrain from issuing a final ruling on the legality of the plan, that is now known as Outright Monetary Transactions (OMT). Instead, it referred the case to the European Court after providing a pre-judgment of the issue making it more difficult for the European Court to bless the politicians as would the US Supreme Court. However, in the middle of the next crisis, the ECB will still act and the European Court will bless the ECB seeing this as a no choice decision to save Europe. Nevertheless, the German high court has made it clear that it considers “the OMT decision incompatible with primary law”.

Why can't Armstrong see that this is just engineered theatrics to make it look like an opposition exists. In reality there is no opposition and the globalist plan is on track.

Of course the global elite made sure to install an honest court that has no power to stop what is coming. This makes it look like there is no complete control. It keeps the people appeased until the end, as they have hope for a honest outcome that won't come.

As much as I admire Eric S Raymond's prose and intellect, he rubs me the wrong way (as I do him also) because he as far as I can see he is an inconsistent hypocrite...

Some more evidence of his linguistic genius. I can't do that.

I can't post on his blog, so let me state my wild-ass theory here. Perhaps his mind has deduced the possible patterns of derivation of English and other derived languages such that he computed the only possible common phonetics of German by inverse derivation.

[CoinCube]

Rather the global elite attempt to capitalize on opportunities that arise from the order amongst the chaos of the universe. They also know the world runs in cycles. They would not destroy Armstrong (and probably pulled the strings to get him out of prison), because they desire to have as much information as possible and his work is important. I also ponder if my work is important enough that any such elite  might believe it is important to not destroy me.

Lets take a moment to walk into the rabbit hole.
Time for some speculating  

Lets start with a few assumptions and lets see where they take us
Assumption #1 A global elite designed Bitcoin
Assumption #2 Bitcoin was deliberately designed to eventually fail
Assumption #3 This global elite is manipulating the world behind the scenes
Assumption #4 The goal of the global elite is to push us gradually into a single world government
Assumption #5 The economic analysis above regarding the rise of the knowledge age, the diminishing role of socialism, and the need for anonymity is correct.

If the above assumptions are all true then what logically follows?

If assumption #1 and #2 are correct then Bitcoin is perfectly designed to spark a huge interest in cryptocurrency without disrupting the underlying economy. Its spectacular marketing combined with the massive profits of the early adopters has brought the idea of cryptocurrency to the masses. Furthermore since it is designed to fail it will be self limiting with minimal long term economic disruption.  Bitcoin would thus be the equivalent of a hugely successful marketing campaign for cyptocurrency in general. It seems designed to spark and accelerate the development of improved successors.  

Releasing a perfect cryptocurrency with anonymity from the start would have been very disruptive as it would have grown much slower then bitcoin and thus resulted in extreme concentrations of wealth in the hands of a handful of early adopters. Instead, optimal efficiency requires the market to be primed to ensure early widespread distribution. No better way to do that then Bitcoin.

If assumption #3 and #4 are both true then the elite must be both incredibly intelligent and disciplined.  Furthermore as a group they are likely to believe both individually and collectively that their cause is for the good of humanity. It would take only a single defector to blow the whistle on the entire group and this is would but much more likely to occur if their designs were nefarious.  

If assumption #5 is correct then a single world government is not a bad thing provided such a government does not threaten individual liberty. Such a government (once the power vacuum is solved) will allow socialism to achieve greater economies of scale as gradually winds down in diminished relevance over time. Anonymity will solve the power vacuum.

Conclusion: If assumptions #1-5 are all correct then the power elite has essentially led us to a solution for the power vacuum (development of anonymous cryptocurrency was inevitable following the release of Bitcoin). They are simultaneously preparing the world for the gradual decline of socialism (via greater economies of scale through one world government). I would imagine that neither you or Armstrong are any any danger from them as they would be in complete support of your work.

First of all, let me be clear that I hope there is no global conspiracy because I would rather be competing against idiots in ad hoc chance than against an very powerful astute elite. Secondly, I have stated that it doesn't affect my plans much either way.

Personally I think we are dealing with idiots in ad hoc chance. I don't think humans are capable of maintaining such a conspiracy. Indeed for such a conspiracy to exist I believe you would need superhuman manipulation of human society by an external more sophisticated source. While the existence of such a culture or entity cannot be dis-proven, it seems more likely we are dealing with chance.


  



 

[AnonyMint]

Listen to the linked Wesley Clark interview, I think it may change your opinion on the organized planning:

This (world war 3 to bring in the SDR system)! And it is underway now. Most people are naive to the reality ongoing now. Go watch the video of General Wesley Clark explaining that the USA had a plan for over a decade to overthrow 7 countries in the Middle East. Obama is going to war with or without the vote of Congress and the public, just as he did in Libya.

More pieces of the puzzle:

Listen to this audio to see in their own words how totalitarian the US government has become behind the curtain. Wikipedia says she was the prime suspect in the Benghazi fiasco which is part of this push Middle East towards the world currency.

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/09/04/syria-benghazi-connection/

The Middle East recently announced a currency union.

My speculation is that key researchers within the NSA were tasked to create a crypto-currency that would provide for a global ledger that tracks all transaction activity, and this would also be a step towards acceptance of electronic currency worldwide. I believe the plan is to later take control of Bitcoin. I believe the NSA correctly concludes they (in cooperation with tax and law enforcement pressure on the numerous non-anonymous users) can defeat any anonymity in the physical economy and I don't think they are targeting the virtual commerce in the Knowledge Age yet (which is still non-existent to miniscule). When we get the Knowledge Age with anonymity, then they plan to move to inserting chips in the human body which can track everything we think, so they can defeat anonymity that way. Thus I see anonymity in the virtual Knowledge Age only working for while. The ultimate outcome is I think already predicted in Revelation in the Bible. I would like to find a reason to refute that prediction but I have not yet, because humans will always favor the power vacuum-- the Iron Law of Political Economics. Thus humanity will physically track down every human on earth and force them to take the chip or be killed. I don't know when that technology will be ready.

The global elite don't need to be superhuman (although they may think they are), only they need the power vacuum and the ruthlessness to maintain their web of power, i.e. assassinate any member who defects. There have been lower level "defections", e.g. I mentioned Carroll Quigley's book Tragedy and Hope.

I find it difficult to fathom how the personality for the top-down ruthlessness required being symbiotic with having a good will towards humanity. It seems more likely to be sociopaths with a creed and strategy similar to The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.

I've read wild-ass hearsay (from a lunatic actress Roseanne Barr) about elite paying big money to masturbate while watching screenings of mass murders and rape of African villages. I assume you've also heard about the homosexual sex goes on at the Bohemian Grove between our elite such as Presidents of the United States, etc.. However these might be the lower echelons who are just pawns and need to be compromised so they can be easily bribed to force them to do what the upper echelon elite want.

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/09/03/john-bolton-v-lindsey-graham/

Meanwhile, the alleged closet homosexual who rumors on the Hill state he flies monthly for sex-junkets to Paris, Lindsey Graham

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/06/09/nsa-surveillance/

It use to be only Santa Claus knew who was naughty or nice. Now it’s the NSA and they dress up as Santa who is now partying with $3500 a night rooms having a very good time. Not quite the Santa Claus we once knew. What about NSA employees blackmailing someone if they leaked something devastating?

[AnonyMint]

It appears the peripheral countries have started to collapse, as we see riots and war fomenting in numerous countries now.

We are headed into massive deflation, and perhaps you fundamentally don't understand that hyperinflation only occurs in peripheral economics, not in the core of the global economy.

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/01/28/here-we-go-again-hypreinflation/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/01/14/hyperinflation-is-it-even-possible/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/20/hyperinflation-all-just-hype/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/01/14/hyperinflation-impossibility-in-private-sector/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/08/11/defining-hyperinflation-the-coming-new-currency/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2012/07/04/hyperinflation/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/02/24/the-untold-truth-about-the-german-hyperinflation/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/06/24/12703/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/12/29/law-of-unintended-consequences/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/the-taxman-cometh/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/10/30/world-trade-turning-negative-same-as-protectionism/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/14/the-coming-deflation/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/09/deflation-the-great-equalizer-now-greece-was-there-a-different-tested-response-in-history-yes/

My point in the Errata section of the OP about centralized control over debasement isn't that hyperinflation results. I never wrote the word hyperinflation. Rather my point is those who have captured the government gain the fruits of that debasement, or it is wasted by the poor fitness of top-down allocation of resources.

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/01/25/the-emerging-market-crisis/

The fourth quarter real estate in Singapore turned down showing that the whole Emerging Markets did tend to peak out with the ECM last August. This has led to a flight of investors from the once-booming emerging markets sector that is similar to the shift in what we began to see in 1994 that manifested into the 1997 Asian Currency Crisis. Previously, international investors poured in some $7 trillion-worth of capital inflows into these emerging markets. This shift in capital outflows for emerging markets has only just begun. The details of the capital flows for 2013 have shown that so far it is retail rather than institutional. The outflows amounted to just over $50 billion. This is also how things started in 1994. Eventually, institutional capital left violently in 1997 to get ready for the birth of the Euro in 1998.

In this case, the leader of the trend has not been institutions, but the retail market investors. It has mainly been this group that has packed their bags and moved back to the USA and European share markets. When the big institutional firms join in, reducing their asset allocation models, then we run the risk of a serious wholesale capital flight as we saw in 1997.

China is starting to slow down and the share markets have established their major high back in 2007 and penetrating the 2013 low in 2014, will warn that China could decline all the way into 2020.

Here follows more links with photos and explanations.

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/02/09/the-economics-of-war/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/02/09/us-pledges-to-defend-japan-winds-of-war/ (U.S.A. vs. China)
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/02/08/tensions-for-war-are-rising-globally/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/02/07/riots-again-in-brazil/ (Brazil)
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/02/07/economic-confidence-collapsing-to-new-lows-in-thailand/ (Thailand)

Our models clearly demonstrate that we are looking at a continued economic slide especially among emerging markets that will put greater pressure behind a rising US dollar. The European banks have a total exposure of more than $3 trillion in emerging markets.

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/02/07/18473/ (Bosnia)
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/02/07/cycle-of-war-gold-sovereign-debt-conference-march-21st/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/02/07/ukraine-force-to-float-currency-because-of-run-on-the-hryvnia/ (Ukraine)
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/02/06/russia-demanding-ukraine-crush-the-portesters/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/02/05/ukraine-becoming-the-real-focal-point/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/02/03/american-tanks-returning-to-europe/ (U.S.A. vs. Russia)
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/01/31/ukraine-doomed-after-the-olympics/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/01/30/the-shocking-truth-in-ukraine-mainstream-will-not-report/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/01/24/tension-everywhere-rising/ (Australia vs. Indonesia)
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/01/23/ukraine-the-revolution-in-full-motion/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/01/23/the-collapse-of-a-country-this-is-what-it-looks-like-confidence/ (Argentina currency crisis)
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/01/20/ukraine-a-glimpse-of-what-is-to-come/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/01/17/violent-rioting-is-spain-spreads/ (Spain)
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/01/17/riots-in-spain-turning-massively-violent/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/01/16/ukraine-cracking-down-on-protesters-shutting-off-internet/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/01/12/civil-unrest-erupting-in-turkey/ (Turkey)
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/01/07/1000s-protesting-in-hong-kong-for-democracy/ (Hong Kong)
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/01/07/separatist-movements-are-also-alive-in-the-usa-goodbye-california/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/01/06/workers-barricade-boss-inside-plant-in-france/ (France)
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/01/04/civil-unrest-rising-in-europe/ (Europe)
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/01/01/pravada-predicts-russia-will-restore-soviet-union-by-2025/ (Russia)
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/12/29/lebanon-1982-the-first-war-the-computer-predicted-on-its-own/ (Lebanon computer prediction in 1982)
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/12/29/the-coming-french-revolution/ (France)
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/12/29/fema-camps-the-real-issues/ (U.S.A. FEMA concentration camps)

The FEMA camps are to arrest civilians when they realize Social Security and the rest of the socialist agenda including pensions are collapsing.

The FEMA camps exist purely because the debt structure is collapsing and those in the bowels of the bureaucracy are scared to death of what they see economically in Europe and the rising civil unrest. There was the incident of 1932 known as the Bonus Army that marched on Washington. That was one of the primary reasons Hoover lost the election because he allowed the troops to move in with tanks against civilians with women and children.

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/12/20/puerto-rico-teachers-protesting-over-cuts-in-pensions/ (Puerto Rico)
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/12/18/turkey-is-on-the-verge-of-real-civil-unrest/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/12/14/riots-in-singapore/ (Singapore)
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/12/13/fireman-battle-police-in-brussels/ (Brussels)
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/12/12/italian-protester-armed-with-pitchforks/ (Italy)
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/12/11/why-switzerland-is-a-no-go/ (Switzerland future problem)
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/12/05/venezuela-currency-in-free-fall/ (Venezuela currency crisis)
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/12/04/chinas-no-fly-zone-confronting-japan-usa/ (China vs. Japan+U.S.A.)
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/12/03/ukraine-maybe-the-most-important-country-to-watch/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/23/breakup-of-great-britain-309-year-cycle/ (Scotland to separate from UK)
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/23/real-estate-outside-usa/ (Indonesian bubble)
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/19/latvia-joins-euro/ (Latvia to join the EU confiscation)
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/18/civil-unrest-in-saudi-arabia/ (Saudi Arabia)
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/17/european-civil-unrest-is-now-widely-expected-by-eu/ (EU-wide riots expected)
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/16/the-deflation-gripping-spain/ (Spain collapses)
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/16/fix-syria/ (fixing Detroit & Syria)
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/15/expect-riots-rise-of-nationalism-after-2015-75-to-pick-up-steam/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/15/rise-of-dictatorship-in-germany/ (Germany totalitarianism rising)
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/14/merkel-rejects-referendums-in-germany/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/14/france-economic-numbers-show-decline-3rd-quarter/ (France, Germany, Euro contagion)
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/13/euro-germany-trade/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/11/crabs-in-a-bucket/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/13/medicare-is-seizing-estates-of-anyone-over-55/ (U.S.A. confiscation underway)
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/09/the-border-of-hell/ (U.S.A. totalitarianism rising)
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/06/slovakia-is-subject-to-eu-bail-ins-imf-seizures/ (Slovakia is enjoined in the EU confiscation)
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/06/million-mask-march/ (Million Mask March)
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/10/28/italy-continued-political-chaos/ (Italy political chaos)
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/10/26/israel-raising-taxes/ (Israel)
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/10/06/russia-nationalizing-pensions/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/10/04/france-makes-it-illegal-to-close-your-company/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/10/04/real-estate-boom-in-switzerland-singapore-elsewhere/ (U.S.A. Q.E. ends up in global real estate bubble which will collapse after 2015.75)
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/10/03/india-killing-the-goose-that-laid-the-golden-egg/

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/09/16/poland-protesting-unemployment/ (Poland)
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/09/12/return-of-the-crusades-2024-8/ (Egypt)
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/09/07/cypriot-economy-headed-toward-depression/ (Cyprus)

Even USA (core economy) is projected to go over 25% official unemployment within a decade. And actual unemployment is double official unemployment rate, because part-timers and people who gave up on finding a job are not counted as unemployed.